Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • PART 4 – The Natural Law of Reciprocity

    RECIPROCITY

    The First Question of Ethics Is The Rationality of Cooperation The first question of ethics is “Why do I not kill you and take your stuff”. The ritual of setting aside this question in order to enter into debate has been lost through the ages. And common interest instead, conveniently assumed as the starting point – rather than the possibility of choice between cooperation, parasitism, and predation. If we assume we start with the given of cooperation then this is a fallacy. Cooperation itself must be valued higher than non-cooperation. And non-cooperation valued higher than predation. Instead, why do I not kill you? What are the minimum criterion for cooperation under which not-killing you is advantageous? Certainly it is not rational to tolerate violence or theft. Certainly not deceit. Certainly not the imposition of costs. Certainly not danger to my kith and kin. Certainly not at an expense to my kith and kin (( Literally, albeit archaically, friends (“kith”) and family (“kin”). )). The strong preserve their choices, the middle deny them, and the bottom shame against both – and seek formal institutions of shaming to assist them: public intellectuals and priests.” The One Law of Reciprocity. (Natural Law) Thou shalt not, by display, word, deed, absence of display, word, or deed, impose or allow the imposition of, costs upon the demonstrated interests of others (property-in-toto), either directly or indirectly(by externality), where those interests were obtained by settlement (conversion, or first use) or productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange without such imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others. Therefore thou shalt limit thy displays, words and deeds, and the words and deeds of others, to the productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of interests (property in toto), free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others either directly or indirectly. What is Natural Law? A fully decidable (universal) Law of Ethics. What do you mean by ethics? The law of cooperation and conflict resolution. What is this law of cooperation and conflict resolution? Reciprocity. WHAT IS RECIPROCITY? In the Negative (Silver Rule, or via-negativa): The requirement to avoid the imposition of costs on that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in, without imposing costs upon that which others have likewise born costs to obtain an interest in. In the Positive(Golden Rule, or via-positiva): the requirement that we limit our actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of the imposition of costs by externality, upon that which others have obtained by the same means. As determined by the either any change, or the total change in the inventory that all parties both internal and external to the action have born costs to obtain an interest without imposition of costs upon others directly or indirectly by externality. —“All of ethics can be reduced to [is a subset/special application of] the degree of reciprocity & the accounting thereof.”—WHY DOES RECIPROCITY SERVE AS NATURAL LAW? Because it is apparently impossible to contradict reciprocity in cooperation (ethics), and as such it provides perfect decidability in all contexts of cooperation at all scales in all times, and under all conditions. Fully understanding this law may also require: 1) The knowledge that when we come together in proximity, we decrease opportunity costs, and therefore create opportunities that can be seized, and that opportunities must be homesteaded (settled/converted/first use), and put into production, in order to demonstrate an interest. 2) The definition of the three synonyms: demonstrated interest, demonstrated property, or property-in-toto, as that which people empirically retaliate for impositions against and have demonstrated an interest. 3) The use of the common law (of torts) as the means by which we incrementally and immediately suppress new innovations in parasitism that violate the Natural Law of Reciprocity. 4) The use of Testimonialism (warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, Fictionalism, and deceit) as an involuntary warranty on public speech in matters of the commons, just as we currently force involuntary warranty of due diligence on products, services, and our words regarding products and services. If you understand the one law, and these criteria, nearly all questions of conflict, ethics, morality, politics, and group competition are decidable. (really). This solves the libertarian fallacy of non-aggression by specifically stating the scope of property that we must refrain from imposing costs upon; the cause of that scope (retaliation), the empirical means of determining that scope(demonstrate action), and the means by which violations of that law are discovered, recorded, and evolve. Furthermore: If we define Moral Intuitions as the reactions we feel in response to our thoughts and actions and those of others. If we define Normative Morality as the reactions we feel given for methods of decidability given some set of assumptions. If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference, and If we define truth (negative and descriptive) as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference. Then: We find that personal moral intuition is the product of our genes, and our experiential development. And it varies greatly from individual to individual. We find that existing normative morality is the product of evolutionary accident and we learn it through experience and observation – although it does vary a little from individual to individual within groups, and varies widely between groups. We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups. We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups. We find that juridical philosophy attempts to explain the common law, without necessarily succeeding at doing so. But that the transformation of juridical philosophy to juridical science is eminently possible – we just may not like what we learn, any more than we learned in each previous reformation of our thinking. Natural Law is a negative, descriptive, juridical science, not a fictional literature. It is not a rational philosophy limited to internal correspondence. Its not a moral norm. Nor is it necessarily a moral intuition that all would agree to. It is the record of the arguments by which we decide conflicts over investments we have made, and protect. And from these records we can identify a very simple single law – non imposition of costs upon anything whatsoever that others have invested in producing whether informational, behavioral, material, or institutional. And from those observations we may discover general rules. Just as in any other science. And there is only one of them: reciprocity.

    INCREMENTAL SUPPRESSION BY NATURAL COMMON LAW

    Organic common law as a means of incrementally suppressing free riding 1) Humans acquire at cost and defend what they have acquired at cost. 2) Cooperation is disproportionately more productive than predation. 3) Cooperation is only preferable to predation in the total absence of parasitism. Or, what we call free-riding. 4) Because of the disproportionate value of cooperation, Humans retaliate against free riding even if at high cost ( altruistic punishment). They protect the institution of cooperation by severe policing of violators (cheaters). 5) Rules against free riding, either normative or codified in law, prohibit parasitism (free riding). 6) Prohibitions that are habituated in norms or codified in law provide a means of decision making in matters of conflict. 7) Prohibitions against parasitism can be positively expressed as contractual “rights“. 8) Community members (shareholders in the local market) insure one another by suppressing retaliation against settlements of grievances according to norms and laws. 9) The common, organic law allows for the least time lapse between an innovation in the means of parasitism and the construction of a prohibition against this new means of parasitism expressed as new law. As such all laws are discovered. (very important) 10) High trust societies use common law to incrementally suppress all available means of free riding, leaving productive participation in the market as the only viable means of survival. 11) As a consequence, the reproduction of the lower classes is suppressed and the distribution of talents increases along with the innovations in technology. (market eugenics). Thus obviating the need for either tyranny or redistribution. The chart below shows the incremental suppression of parasitism stating from the suppression of violence through fraud, through conspiracy, through immigration, through conquest. Only the West succeeded in developing deflationary truth (Reporting). And without it we cannot have the jury. And without the jury no judge or common law. Truth matters above all else. Pseudoscience is just Babylonian monotheistic mysticism in new clothes. This emperor is naked also. Truth is enough to rescue the west.

    THE TRANSACTION COST EXPLANATION OF GOVERNMENT

    History says only that the development of a state – a monopoly bureaucracy – transfers high local transaction costs without central rents, to state rents and low transaction cost. Libertarians nearly universally ignore the evidence of universal transaction costs and free riding at the local level. And they further ignore the demonstrated necessity using organized violence by a monopoly organization to suppress those transaction costs and free ridings (“local rents”), and to convert them into central rents in order to pay for such suppression. The counter-argument is that states are in fact a neutral cost, and that we don’t spend enough on them in the suppression of transaction costs, because states provide multiples of return on that suppression. This is also demonstrable. The question isn’t how we can do without the state (a corporation articulated as a monopoly definition of property rights ), but now that we have suppressed local transaction costs, and replaced them with centralized rents in order to produce the commons we call property rights – how do we suppress centralized rents while maintaining the suppression of transaction costs, and the ability to construct commons that such suppression of transaction costs and rents allows us to construct? To argue that a monopoly definition of property rights is somehow “bad”, is irrational since property, obtained by homesteading and by voluntarily exchange, under the requirements for productivity, warranty and symmetry, is as far as I know, as logically consistent and exception-less as are mathematical operations on natural numbers. So the imposition of property rights cannot be illogical, immoral, unethical no matter how they are imposed since they define that which is logical, ethical and moral. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with violence – in fact, it is violence with which we pay for property rights and liberty – it is our first, most important resource in the construction of liberty. Instead, the question is purely institutional: having used violence to centralize transaction costs into rents, how do we now use violence to eliminate rents from the central organization? This is pretty easy: Universal standing, Universal Property rights, and Organically constructed, Common Law, predicated upon the one law of property rights as positive articulation of the prohibition on and the suppression of involuntary transfers: the demand for fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary exchanges free of externality. Because it is only under fully informed, productive, voluntary transfer, warrantied and free of externality that cooperation is rational, rather than parasitic. And only under rational cooperation is forgoing one’s opportunity to use violence equally rational. The question becomes then, who prohibits the formation of authority and this falls to the citizenry: the militia – those who possess violence. As far as I know this is the correct analysis of political evolution, and the correct theory for future political action. SUPPRESSION OF LOCAL, THEN CENTRAL RENTS The state is the result of organized suppression of private impositions while preserving political rents to pay for that suppression. But the problem we face if we wish to reduce or eliminate the interference and rent seeking of the state, is to eliminate by way of the common law, using positive assertion of property rights, all actions that produce rents, whether in public or private life. First we centralize rents to suppress local rents and increase local productivity. Next we eliminate rents in order to suppress political parasitism endemic to all monopoly and all monopoly bureaucracy. FULL SPECTRUM OF DEMOGRAPHIC PACIFICATION: To take it even further, we can suppress demographic parasitism: 1 – Incremental Suppression. (the common law of torts) 2 – Reproductive limitation. (Soft or hard eugenics) 3 – Physical Removal (Deportation or imprisonment) 4 – Genetic Pacification (Hanging). 5 – Culling (Casualties).

    WHAT DO WE MEAN BY NATURAL LAW?

    Humans create commands, legislation, and regulations. But Laws, both physical and natural (cooperation), we can only discover. We cannot any more create a law of cooperation (natural law) than we can a law of nature (physical laws). The only difference between physical laws and natural laws is that since we have memories, we can cooperate across time rather than be limited to the moment of the difference in potential.

    A LITTLE HISTORY OF NATURAL LAW – FROM THE GOOD, TO THE MORAL, TO THE RATIONAL, TO THE SCIENTIFIC.

    What do we mean by Law? Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law (Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884). Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law and how the law developed. Natural Law is a broad and often misapplied term tossed around various schools of philosophy, science, history, theology, and law. Immanuel Kant reminded us, ‘What is law?’ may be said to be about as embarrassing to the jurist as the well-know question ‘What is Truth?’ is to the logician. Natural Law – A Moral Theory of Jurisprudence Natural Law evolved as a moral theory of jurisprudence, which maintains that law should be based on morality and ethics. Natural Law holds that the law is based on what’s “correct.” Natural Law is “discovered” by humans through the use of reason and choosing between good and evil. Therefore, Natural Law finds its power in discovering certain universal standards in morality and ethics. The Greeks – Living In Correspondence with The Natural World The Greeks — Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle emphasized the distinction between “nature” (physis, φúσις) and “law,” “custom,” or “convention” (nomos, νóμος). What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was “by nature” should be the same everywhere. Aristotle (BC 384—322) is considered by many to be the father of “natural law.” In Rhetoric, he argues that aside from “particular” laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a “common law” or “higher law” that is according to nature (Rhetoric 1373b2–8). The Stoics — A Rational and Purposeful Law The development of natural law theory continued in the Hellenistic school of philosophy, particularly with the Stoics. The Stoics pointed to the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe. The means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this cosmic order was considered natural law. Unlike Aristotle’s “higher law,” Stoic natural law was indifferent to the divine or natural source of that law. Stoic philosophy was very influential with Roman jurists such as Cicero, thus playing a significant role in the development of Roman legal theory. The Christians — A Utopian Supernatural Law Augustine (AD 354—430) equates natural law with man’s Pre-Fall state. Therefore, life according to nature is no longer possible and mankind must instead seek salvation through the divine law and Christ’s grace. Gratian (12th century) reconnected the concept of natural law and divine law. “The Human Race is ruled by two things: namely, natural law and usages (mos, moris, mores). Natural law is what is contained in the law and the Gospel. By it, each person is commanded to do to others what he wants done to himself and is prohibited from inflicting on others what he does not want done to himself.” (Decretum, D.1 d.a.c.1; ca. 1140 AD) The Enlightenment Thinkers (AD 1600 – 2016) – A Rational Natural Law – From Property (Bacon/English, Locke/British, Jefferson/Anglo-German, The 20th Century Thinkers – The Reduction of Social Science to Property Rights (Hayek/Austrian, Rothbard/Jewish, Hoppe/German) 21st Century Thinkers – The Science of Cooperation (In Markets) (Doolittle) The attempt to mature Stoic, Roman, Germanic, and British empirical law into a formal logic wherein all rights are reduced to property rights, and where such law is strictly constructed from the prohibition on the imposition of costs – costs that would cause retaliation and increase the costs, risk, and likelihood of cooperation. Impediments to cooperation. Where cooperation creates prosperity in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy. In other words, natural law, evolved from empirical common law, as the formal category(property), logic (construction), empiricism(from observation), and science (continuous improvement) of human cooperation. In this view, ethics, morality, economics, law, politics constitute the science of cooperation: social science. Everything else is justification, advocacy, literature, and propaganda. NATURAL LAW IN THE HEIRARCHY OF LAWSDEFINITION: LAW (‘necessary’, ‘inescapable’, or ‘unavoidable’). 1 – Law: a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), insured by the forces (organizations) of nature or man(polity, or government). 2 – Law (physical): a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), discovered by a process of testing(prosecuting) an hypothesis against reality, 3 – Law (Natural): a statement of perpetual continuity (reciprocity) insured by the forces of nature (natural law) 4 – Law (Testimonial): A statement of perpetual continuity discovered by formal grammar and dimensional testing. 5 – Law (Common): a discovery (finding) of a violation of reciprocity, argued by a plaintiff, defendant, or prosecutor (hypothesis) of the findings of an inquiry by a judge (theory), that survives refutation from other judges (law), insured by a third party insurer of last resort (polity, government). 6 – “Law” (Command) A command issued by the insurer of last resort, insured (enforced) by that insurer of last resort. 7 – “Law” (Legislation): A contract on terms between members of ruling organization, issued by that organization, in its capacity of an insurer of last resort (self insurance). 8 – “Law” (Treaty): An agreement between insurers of last resort, under reciprocal promise of adherence and insurance. Of these eight, command and legislation are not laws, but enforced as if they were laws. Treaties are uninsurable, because compliance is voluntary, un-enforceable, and such agreements are, and always have been regularly violated – unless insure LAWS OF NATURE, NATURAL LAW, AND LAWS OF INFORMATION 1) Laws of nature (physical laws) and; 2) Natural laws (laws of cooperation), and; 3) Testimonial Laws (laws of information); … consist of a spectrum dependent upon each other.

    A LESSON IN NATURAL LAW

    The problem with both neo-liberalism and movement-conservatism has been the assumption that the other side would eventually ‘catch on’ rather than pursue their own interests. WHEREAS Science as we understand it is an attempt to create a discipline of truthful speech about any given subject. Science as we understand it does not currently ‘recognize’ this attribute of science. Science as we understand it does not include those properties we call costs. Science as we understand it does not include those properties we call moral. Science as we understand it can be extended to include those properties we call costs and morality. THEREFORE Science as we understand it can then be restated as the discipline of constructing moral truthful speech. Science then is identical to epistemology in philosophy, and philosophy in toto as a discipline is begun, as its first purpose, with ethics (morality), not metaphysics. Law can now be scientifically constructed. Truth, science, law, morality are now identical. All else currently masquerading as philosophy, is no longer categorizable as philosophy, but as theology, psychology, or deception. THE OPPOSITION Liberal(feminine and socialist) strategy reflects the female reproductive strategy to increase the viability of her offspring regardless of its merit to the tribe, and to increase numbers in an attempt to prevent alphas from controlling the direction of evolution. The conservative(masculine and aristocratic) strategy reflects the male reproductive strategy to increase the viability of the tribe in competition with other tribes, regardless of the interests of the uncompetitive individuals within it. What happened instead, was that once the difference between male and female reproductive strategy was no longer constrained to the family, and that policy was no longer developed to advance the family, was that females first, and as a consequence, more recently males, have each pursued their individual reproductive interests in politics and law, instead of compromising them within the family, and voting in the interests of the family. Ergo, just as socialism(non-merit) advances the interests of females and underclasses, aristocracy(merit) – what you call fascism – advances the interests of the male. The institutional solution to this problem of conflict are either (a) restoration of the family as the central purpose of policy – rather than the individual, or (b) the separation of houses in to gender, class and race, so that all must agree to any policy in order for it to ascend into legislative law. The west advanced faster than ‘the rest’ in large part because of successfully instituted eugenic reproduction over a period of many hundreds of years. 1) Late marriage ensuring women were experienced at working and running households. 2) Prohibition on cousin marriage out to as many as 12 generations – ensuring limited genetic damage from inbreeding that is so influential in much of the world. 3) Extension of property rights to women ensuring that cousin marriage could not be used to hold territory in a clan. 4) The use of Bipartite Manorialism to restrict access to farmland to married couples of demonstrated character sufficient to make use of it. 5) Heavy taxation that limited the reproduction of the lower classes. 6) Hanging 1/2 to 1% of the population every single year. 7) The cumulative effect being the upward redistribution of reproduction to the genetic middle class. Liberalism(female reproductive strategy) inverts this aristocracy/fascism(male reproductive strategy), redistributing reproduction downward to the lower classes. WHY DOES THIS DIFFERENCE EXIST? Man has developed two strategies for organizing(governing) societies, with each necessary for the demographics each governs. 1) The Persian/Iranian/Jewish/Egyptian (Managers) In the fertile crescent the climate allows the survival of many offspring and the use of flood plains can make use of genetically lower class labor and slaves. In the Persian/Jewish/Egyptian model, an elite uses verbal mysticism to dominate and ‘farm’ the lower classes, using large slave armies. 2) The Chinese / Russian (Conquerors) The Conquering Peoples. The Chinese rapidly advanced beyond flood plains out of defense against raiding neighbors and then converted to authoritarian conquerors. But out of genetic and cultural diversity, had to maintain authoritarian order. The Russians -steppe raiders- learned their governance from the conquering Mongols, and so started as conquerors, and because of genetic and cultural diversity had to maintain authoritarian order – bypassing both the flood pain, and the 3) The Hellenic/Roman/Germanic (Enfranchisers) The forest-and-rivers of the European plain allow for if not require, individual family farms, and the survival of harsh winters limits the ability of the genetically lower classes from survival. In the Hellenic/Roman/Germanic model, an elite uses rule of law among many peers to suppress the reproduction and burden of the lower classes, using militia and voluntarily organized warriors. 4) The Hindu/South American Model (Failed Managers) In this model the aristocracy is so overwhelmed by the numbers of the underclasses that it cannot create Pareto-distribution of property, and without the control of the flood plains, the only method of insuring the survivability of the populace is through castes, and constraining the upper classes from down-breeding. We see this socialist strategy today in the Islamic forced indoctrination, in Jewish verbalism – information control by saturation of it, and in Chinese/Russian violence/censorship – information control by limiting it. All three of these methods are constructed of deceit. We see this aristocratic strategy today only in Germanic the west, that still seeks to parent society into a universal genetic middle class – an ‘aristocracy of everyone’ – by the suppression or at least out-casting of the underclasses. THE WEST MUST CHOOSE A FUTURE SUITABLE TO ITS DEMOGRAPHIC, AND A DEMOGRAPHIC SUITABLE TO ITS DESIRED FUTURE 1 – The Aristocratic Egalitarian System (that everyone seems to want to belong to) (innovative, expansionary) 2 – The Caste System (which is evolving in South America) (Static, Static) 3 – The Authoritarian Disinformation System (Russia and china) (Static, expansionary) 4 – The Authoritarian Mystical System (Judaism in all its many forms / Islamism in all its forms) (Parasitic, Regressive, Expansionary) In the end, we must abandon the pseudosciences of the Jewish Enlightenment: Boaz, Freud, Marx, and the Frankfurt School. As well as the pseudosciences of the continentals: the postmodernists. As well as the pseudosciences of the soviets. Our world is as genetic as that of domesticated animals. We are unequal. And it is more important that we suppress the reproduction of the lower classes than it is that we attempt to improve the upper. There is precious little evidence that more than two and a half standard deviations in intelligence make much difference – instead it introduces dysfunction. Our problem is increasing the domestication and intelligence of the population by one standard deviation (15 points) and we cannot do that, nor possess prosperity, nor redistribution, nor liberty, if we reverse three thousand years of eugenic reproduction. This is the world as it is. Governing the people we possess. With the people we possess to govern with. Neoliberalism is yet another lie. A new mysticism. A secular religion. An evolution of Egyptian, Persian, Jewish, Muslim thought. Nothing more. Yet another set of appealing lies. And those lies are a prison for genes, and therefore for man.

  • PART 4 – The Natural Law of Reciprocity

    RECIPROCITY

    The First Question of Ethics Is The Rationality of Cooperation The first question of ethics is “Why do I not kill you and take your stuff”. The ritual of setting aside this question in order to enter into debate has been lost through the ages. And common interest instead, conveniently assumed as the starting point – rather than the possibility of choice between cooperation, parasitism, and predation. If we assume we start with the given of cooperation then this is a fallacy. Cooperation itself must be valued higher than non-cooperation. And non-cooperation valued higher than predation. Instead, why do I not kill you? What are the minimum criterion for cooperation under which not-killing you is advantageous? Certainly it is not rational to tolerate violence or theft. Certainly not deceit. Certainly not the imposition of costs. Certainly not danger to my kith and kin. Certainly not at an expense to my kith and kin (( Literally, albeit archaically, friends (“kith”) and family (“kin”). )). The strong preserve their choices, the middle deny them, and the bottom shame against both – and seek formal institutions of shaming to assist them: public intellectuals and priests.” The One Law of Reciprocity. (Natural Law) Thou shalt not, by display, word, deed, absence of display, word, or deed, impose or allow the imposition of, costs upon the demonstrated interests of others (property-in-toto), either directly or indirectly(by externality), where those interests were obtained by settlement (conversion, or first use) or productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange without such imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others. Therefore thou shalt limit thy displays, words and deeds, and the words and deeds of others, to the productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of interests (property in toto), free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others either directly or indirectly. What is Natural Law? A fully decidable (universal) Law of Ethics. What do you mean by ethics? The law of cooperation and conflict resolution. What is this law of cooperation and conflict resolution? Reciprocity. WHAT IS RECIPROCITY? In the Negative (Silver Rule, or via-negativa): The requirement to avoid the imposition of costs on that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in, without imposing costs upon that which others have likewise born costs to obtain an interest in. In the Positive(Golden Rule, or via-positiva): the requirement that we limit our actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of the imposition of costs by externality, upon that which others have obtained by the same means. As determined by the either any change, or the total change in the inventory that all parties both internal and external to the action have born costs to obtain an interest without imposition of costs upon others directly or indirectly by externality. —“All of ethics can be reduced to [is a subset/special application of] the degree of reciprocity & the accounting thereof.”—WHY DOES RECIPROCITY SERVE AS NATURAL LAW? Because it is apparently impossible to contradict reciprocity in cooperation (ethics), and as such it provides perfect decidability in all contexts of cooperation at all scales in all times, and under all conditions. Fully understanding this law may also require: 1) The knowledge that when we come together in proximity, we decrease opportunity costs, and therefore create opportunities that can be seized, and that opportunities must be homesteaded (settled/converted/first use), and put into production, in order to demonstrate an interest. 2) The definition of the three synonyms: demonstrated interest, demonstrated property, or property-in-toto, as that which people empirically retaliate for impositions against and have demonstrated an interest. 3) The use of the common law (of torts) as the means by which we incrementally and immediately suppress new innovations in parasitism that violate the Natural Law of Reciprocity. 4) The use of Testimonialism (warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, Fictionalism, and deceit) as an involuntary warranty on public speech in matters of the commons, just as we currently force involuntary warranty of due diligence on products, services, and our words regarding products and services. If you understand the one law, and these criteria, nearly all questions of conflict, ethics, morality, politics, and group competition are decidable. (really). This solves the libertarian fallacy of non-aggression by specifically stating the scope of property that we must refrain from imposing costs upon; the cause of that scope (retaliation), the empirical means of determining that scope(demonstrate action), and the means by which violations of that law are discovered, recorded, and evolve. Furthermore: If we define Moral Intuitions as the reactions we feel in response to our thoughts and actions and those of others. If we define Normative Morality as the reactions we feel given for methods of decidability given some set of assumptions. If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference, and If we define truth (negative and descriptive) as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference. Then: We find that personal moral intuition is the product of our genes, and our experiential development. And it varies greatly from individual to individual. We find that existing normative morality is the product of evolutionary accident and we learn it through experience and observation – although it does vary a little from individual to individual within groups, and varies widely between groups. We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups. We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups. We find that juridical philosophy attempts to explain the common law, without necessarily succeeding at doing so. But that the transformation of juridical philosophy to juridical science is eminently possible – we just may not like what we learn, any more than we learned in each previous reformation of our thinking. Natural Law is a negative, descriptive, juridical science, not a fictional literature. It is not a rational philosophy limited to internal correspondence. Its not a moral norm. Nor is it necessarily a moral intuition that all would agree to. It is the record of the arguments by which we decide conflicts over investments we have made, and protect. And from these records we can identify a very simple single law – non imposition of costs upon anything whatsoever that others have invested in producing whether informational, behavioral, material, or institutional. And from those observations we may discover general rules. Just as in any other science. And there is only one of them: reciprocity.

    INCREMENTAL SUPPRESSION BY NATURAL COMMON LAW

    Organic common law as a means of incrementally suppressing free riding 1) Humans acquire at cost and defend what they have acquired at cost. 2) Cooperation is disproportionately more productive than predation. 3) Cooperation is only preferable to predation in the total absence of parasitism. Or, what we call free-riding. 4) Because of the disproportionate value of cooperation, Humans retaliate against free riding even if at high cost ( altruistic punishment). They protect the institution of cooperation by severe policing of violators (cheaters). 5) Rules against free riding, either normative or codified in law, prohibit parasitism (free riding). 6) Prohibitions that are habituated in norms or codified in law provide a means of decision making in matters of conflict. 7) Prohibitions against parasitism can be positively expressed as contractual “rights“. 8) Community members (shareholders in the local market) insure one another by suppressing retaliation against settlements of grievances according to norms and laws. 9) The common, organic law allows for the least time lapse between an innovation in the means of parasitism and the construction of a prohibition against this new means of parasitism expressed as new law. As such all laws are discovered. (very important) 10) High trust societies use common law to incrementally suppress all available means of free riding, leaving productive participation in the market as the only viable means of survival. 11) As a consequence, the reproduction of the lower classes is suppressed and the distribution of talents increases along with the innovations in technology. (market eugenics). Thus obviating the need for either tyranny or redistribution. The chart below shows the incremental suppression of parasitism stating from the suppression of violence through fraud, through conspiracy, through immigration, through conquest. Only the West succeeded in developing deflationary truth (Reporting). And without it we cannot have the jury. And without the jury no judge or common law. Truth matters above all else. Pseudoscience is just Babylonian monotheistic mysticism in new clothes. This emperor is naked also. Truth is enough to rescue the west.

    THE TRANSACTION COST EXPLANATION OF GOVERNMENT

    History says only that the development of a state – a monopoly bureaucracy – transfers high local transaction costs without central rents, to state rents and low transaction cost. Libertarians nearly universally ignore the evidence of universal transaction costs and free riding at the local level. And they further ignore the demonstrated necessity using organized violence by a monopoly organization to suppress those transaction costs and free ridings (“local rents”), and to convert them into central rents in order to pay for such suppression. The counter-argument is that states are in fact a neutral cost, and that we don’t spend enough on them in the suppression of transaction costs, because states provide multiples of return on that suppression. This is also demonstrable. The question isn’t how we can do without the state (a corporation articulated as a monopoly definition of property rights ), but now that we have suppressed local transaction costs, and replaced them with centralized rents in order to produce the commons we call property rights – how do we suppress centralized rents while maintaining the suppression of transaction costs, and the ability to construct commons that such suppression of transaction costs and rents allows us to construct? To argue that a monopoly definition of property rights is somehow “bad”, is irrational since property, obtained by homesteading and by voluntarily exchange, under the requirements for productivity, warranty and symmetry, is as far as I know, as logically consistent and exception-less as are mathematical operations on natural numbers. So the imposition of property rights cannot be illogical, immoral, unethical no matter how they are imposed since they define that which is logical, ethical and moral. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with violence – in fact, it is violence with which we pay for property rights and liberty – it is our first, most important resource in the construction of liberty. Instead, the question is purely institutional: having used violence to centralize transaction costs into rents, how do we now use violence to eliminate rents from the central organization? This is pretty easy: Universal standing, Universal Property rights, and Organically constructed, Common Law, predicated upon the one law of property rights as positive articulation of the prohibition on and the suppression of involuntary transfers: the demand for fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary exchanges free of externality. Because it is only under fully informed, productive, voluntary transfer, warrantied and free of externality that cooperation is rational, rather than parasitic. And only under rational cooperation is forgoing one’s opportunity to use violence equally rational. The question becomes then, who prohibits the formation of authority and this falls to the citizenry: the militia – those who possess violence. As far as I know this is the correct analysis of political evolution, and the correct theory for future political action. SUPPRESSION OF LOCAL, THEN CENTRAL RENTS The state is the result of organized suppression of private impositions while preserving political rents to pay for that suppression. But the problem we face if we wish to reduce or eliminate the interference and rent seeking of the state, is to eliminate by way of the common law, using positive assertion of property rights, all actions that produce rents, whether in public or private life. First we centralize rents to suppress local rents and increase local productivity. Next we eliminate rents in order to suppress political parasitism endemic to all monopoly and all monopoly bureaucracy. FULL SPECTRUM OF DEMOGRAPHIC PACIFICATION: To take it even further, we can suppress demographic parasitism: 1 – Incremental Suppression. (the common law of torts) 2 – Reproductive limitation. (Soft or hard eugenics) 3 – Physical Removal (Deportation or imprisonment) 4 – Genetic Pacification (Hanging). 5 – Culling (Casualties).

    WHAT DO WE MEAN BY NATURAL LAW?

    Humans create commands, legislation, and regulations. But Laws, both physical and natural (cooperation), we can only discover. We cannot any more create a law of cooperation (natural law) than we can a law of nature (physical laws). The only difference between physical laws and natural laws is that since we have memories, we can cooperate across time rather than be limited to the moment of the difference in potential.

    A LITTLE HISTORY OF NATURAL LAW – FROM THE GOOD, TO THE MORAL, TO THE RATIONAL, TO THE SCIENTIFIC.

    What do we mean by Law? Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law (Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884). Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law and how the law developed. Natural Law is a broad and often misapplied term tossed around various schools of philosophy, science, history, theology, and law. Immanuel Kant reminded us, ‘What is law?’ may be said to be about as embarrassing to the jurist as the well-know question ‘What is Truth?’ is to the logician. Natural Law – A Moral Theory of Jurisprudence Natural Law evolved as a moral theory of jurisprudence, which maintains that law should be based on morality and ethics. Natural Law holds that the law is based on what’s “correct.” Natural Law is “discovered” by humans through the use of reason and choosing between good and evil. Therefore, Natural Law finds its power in discovering certain universal standards in morality and ethics. The Greeks – Living In Correspondence with The Natural World The Greeks — Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle emphasized the distinction between “nature” (physis, φúσις) and “law,” “custom,” or “convention” (nomos, νóμος). What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was “by nature” should be the same everywhere. Aristotle (BC 384—322) is considered by many to be the father of “natural law.” In Rhetoric, he argues that aside from “particular” laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a “common law” or “higher law” that is according to nature (Rhetoric 1373b2–8). The Stoics — A Rational and Purposeful Law The development of natural law theory continued in the Hellenistic school of philosophy, particularly with the Stoics. The Stoics pointed to the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe. The means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this cosmic order was considered natural law. Unlike Aristotle’s “higher law,” Stoic natural law was indifferent to the divine or natural source of that law. Stoic philosophy was very influential with Roman jurists such as Cicero, thus playing a significant role in the development of Roman legal theory. The Christians — A Utopian Supernatural Law Augustine (AD 354—430) equates natural law with man’s Pre-Fall state. Therefore, life according to nature is no longer possible and mankind must instead seek salvation through the divine law and Christ’s grace. Gratian (12th century) reconnected the concept of natural law and divine law. “The Human Race is ruled by two things: namely, natural law and usages (mos, moris, mores). Natural law is what is contained in the law and the Gospel. By it, each person is commanded to do to others what he wants done to himself and is prohibited from inflicting on others what he does not want done to himself.” (Decretum, D.1 d.a.c.1; ca. 1140 AD) The Enlightenment Thinkers (AD 1600 – 2016) – A Rational Natural Law – From Property (Bacon/English, Locke/British, Jefferson/Anglo-German, The 20th Century Thinkers – The Reduction of Social Science to Property Rights (Hayek/Austrian, Rothbard/Jewish, Hoppe/German) 21st Century Thinkers – The Science of Cooperation (In Markets) (Doolittle) The attempt to mature Stoic, Roman, Germanic, and British empirical law into a formal logic wherein all rights are reduced to property rights, and where such law is strictly constructed from the prohibition on the imposition of costs – costs that would cause retaliation and increase the costs, risk, and likelihood of cooperation. Impediments to cooperation. Where cooperation creates prosperity in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy. In other words, natural law, evolved from empirical common law, as the formal category(property), logic (construction), empiricism(from observation), and science (continuous improvement) of human cooperation. In this view, ethics, morality, economics, law, politics constitute the science of cooperation: social science. Everything else is justification, advocacy, literature, and propaganda. NATURAL LAW IN THE HEIRARCHY OF LAWSDEFINITION: LAW (‘necessary’, ‘inescapable’, or ‘unavoidable’). 1 – Law: a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), insured by the forces (organizations) of nature or man(polity, or government). 2 – Law (physical): a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), discovered by a process of testing(prosecuting) an hypothesis against reality, 3 – Law (Natural): a statement of perpetual continuity (reciprocity) insured by the forces of nature (natural law) 4 – Law (Testimonial): A statement of perpetual continuity discovered by formal grammar and dimensional testing. 5 – Law (Common): a discovery (finding) of a violation of reciprocity, argued by a plaintiff, defendant, or prosecutor (hypothesis) of the findings of an inquiry by a judge (theory), that survives refutation from other judges (law), insured by a third party insurer of last resort (polity, government). 6 – “Law” (Command) A command issued by the insurer of last resort, insured (enforced) by that insurer of last resort. 7 – “Law” (Legislation): A contract on terms between members of ruling organization, issued by that organization, in its capacity of an insurer of last resort (self insurance). 8 – “Law” (Treaty): An agreement between insurers of last resort, under reciprocal promise of adherence and insurance. Of these eight, command and legislation are not laws, but enforced as if they were laws. Treaties are uninsurable, because compliance is voluntary, un-enforceable, and such agreements are, and always have been regularly violated – unless insure LAWS OF NATURE, NATURAL LAW, AND LAWS OF INFORMATION 1) Laws of nature (physical laws) and; 2) Natural laws (laws of cooperation), and; 3) Testimonial Laws (laws of information); … consist of a spectrum dependent upon each other.

    A LESSON IN NATURAL LAW

    The problem with both neo-liberalism and movement-conservatism has been the assumption that the other side would eventually ‘catch on’ rather than pursue their own interests. WHEREAS Science as we understand it is an attempt to create a discipline of truthful speech about any given subject. Science as we understand it does not currently ‘recognize’ this attribute of science. Science as we understand it does not include those properties we call costs. Science as we understand it does not include those properties we call moral. Science as we understand it can be extended to include those properties we call costs and morality. THEREFORE Science as we understand it can then be restated as the discipline of constructing moral truthful speech. Science then is identical to epistemology in philosophy, and philosophy in toto as a discipline is begun, as its first purpose, with ethics (morality), not metaphysics. Law can now be scientifically constructed. Truth, science, law, morality are now identical. All else currently masquerading as philosophy, is no longer categorizable as philosophy, but as theology, psychology, or deception. THE OPPOSITION Liberal(feminine and socialist) strategy reflects the female reproductive strategy to increase the viability of her offspring regardless of its merit to the tribe, and to increase numbers in an attempt to prevent alphas from controlling the direction of evolution. The conservative(masculine and aristocratic) strategy reflects the male reproductive strategy to increase the viability of the tribe in competition with other tribes, regardless of the interests of the uncompetitive individuals within it. What happened instead, was that once the difference between male and female reproductive strategy was no longer constrained to the family, and that policy was no longer developed to advance the family, was that females first, and as a consequence, more recently males, have each pursued their individual reproductive interests in politics and law, instead of compromising them within the family, and voting in the interests of the family. Ergo, just as socialism(non-merit) advances the interests of females and underclasses, aristocracy(merit) – what you call fascism – advances the interests of the male. The institutional solution to this problem of conflict are either (a) restoration of the family as the central purpose of policy – rather than the individual, or (b) the separation of houses in to gender, class and race, so that all must agree to any policy in order for it to ascend into legislative law. The west advanced faster than ‘the rest’ in large part because of successfully instituted eugenic reproduction over a period of many hundreds of years. 1) Late marriage ensuring women were experienced at working and running households. 2) Prohibition on cousin marriage out to as many as 12 generations – ensuring limited genetic damage from inbreeding that is so influential in much of the world. 3) Extension of property rights to women ensuring that cousin marriage could not be used to hold territory in a clan. 4) The use of Bipartite Manorialism to restrict access to farmland to married couples of demonstrated character sufficient to make use of it. 5) Heavy taxation that limited the reproduction of the lower classes. 6) Hanging 1/2 to 1% of the population every single year. 7) The cumulative effect being the upward redistribution of reproduction to the genetic middle class. Liberalism(female reproductive strategy) inverts this aristocracy/fascism(male reproductive strategy), redistributing reproduction downward to the lower classes. WHY DOES THIS DIFFERENCE EXIST? Man has developed two strategies for organizing(governing) societies, with each necessary for the demographics each governs. 1) The Persian/Iranian/Jewish/Egyptian (Managers) In the fertile crescent the climate allows the survival of many offspring and the use of flood plains can make use of genetically lower class labor and slaves. In the Persian/Jewish/Egyptian model, an elite uses verbal mysticism to dominate and ‘farm’ the lower classes, using large slave armies. 2) The Chinese / Russian (Conquerors) The Conquering Peoples. The Chinese rapidly advanced beyond flood plains out of defense against raiding neighbors and then converted to authoritarian conquerors. But out of genetic and cultural diversity, had to maintain authoritarian order. The Russians -steppe raiders- learned their governance from the conquering Mongols, and so started as conquerors, and because of genetic and cultural diversity had to maintain authoritarian order – bypassing both the flood pain, and the 3) The Hellenic/Roman/Germanic (Enfranchisers) The forest-and-rivers of the European plain allow for if not require, individual family farms, and the survival of harsh winters limits the ability of the genetically lower classes from survival. In the Hellenic/Roman/Germanic model, an elite uses rule of law among many peers to suppress the reproduction and burden of the lower classes, using militia and voluntarily organized warriors. 4) The Hindu/South American Model (Failed Managers) In this model the aristocracy is so overwhelmed by the numbers of the underclasses that it cannot create Pareto-distribution of property, and without the control of the flood plains, the only method of insuring the survivability of the populace is through castes, and constraining the upper classes from down-breeding. We see this socialist strategy today in the Islamic forced indoctrination, in Jewish verbalism – information control by saturation of it, and in Chinese/Russian violence/censorship – information control by limiting it. All three of these methods are constructed of deceit. We see this aristocratic strategy today only in Germanic the west, that still seeks to parent society into a universal genetic middle class – an ‘aristocracy of everyone’ – by the suppression or at least out-casting of the underclasses. THE WEST MUST CHOOSE A FUTURE SUITABLE TO ITS DEMOGRAPHIC, AND A DEMOGRAPHIC SUITABLE TO ITS DESIRED FUTURE 1 – The Aristocratic Egalitarian System (that everyone seems to want to belong to) (innovative, expansionary) 2 – The Caste System (which is evolving in South America) (Static, Static) 3 – The Authoritarian Disinformation System (Russia and china) (Static, expansionary) 4 – The Authoritarian Mystical System (Judaism in all its many forms / Islamism in all its forms) (Parasitic, Regressive, Expansionary) In the end, we must abandon the pseudosciences of the Jewish Enlightenment: Boaz, Freud, Marx, and the Frankfurt School. As well as the pseudosciences of the continentals: the postmodernists. As well as the pseudosciences of the soviets. Our world is as genetic as that of domesticated animals. We are unequal. And it is more important that we suppress the reproduction of the lower classes than it is that we attempt to improve the upper. There is precious little evidence that more than two and a half standard deviations in intelligence make much difference – instead it introduces dysfunction. Our problem is increasing the domestication and intelligence of the population by one standard deviation (15 points) and we cannot do that, nor possess prosperity, nor redistribution, nor liberty, if we reverse three thousand years of eugenic reproduction. This is the world as it is. Governing the people we possess. With the people we possess to govern with. Neoliberalism is yet another lie. A new mysticism. A secular religion. An evolution of Egyptian, Persian, Jewish, Muslim thought. Nothing more. Yet another set of appealing lies. And those lies are a prison for genes, and therefore for man.

  • Algorithmic Law

    STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF NATURAL LAW

    This is perhaps the most difficult part of the course, and may be the most important, because it requires that you train yourself to think very clearly – and painfully realize that you may not understand or know what you think you do. (Which is its purpose). However, after the freshman level courses your ability to think, communicate, persuade, and argue will be dramatically improved and your grasp of the world rapidly improved as well. Definitions Learn to write and speak about concepts in enumerated series. Three points make a line so to speak, and all concepts can be demarcated and deconflated by referring to series (an ordered list) rather than an ‘idea’ type which allows for suggestion and conflation. (Notice how often I repeat these ‘series’ – over and over again until everyone memorizes them out of habit rather than intent.) One Law of Cooperation. The first step you’ll need to memorize is the very simple One Law of Cooperation: That to create and preserve the incentive to cooperate we must eliminate the incentive not to cooperate, and eliminate the incentive to retaliate, by limiting our actions to those that produce productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers of property in toto, limited to productive externalities (consequences both intended and unintended). Acquisitionism and Property In Toto The next step is to learn Property in Toto – or ‘Demonstrated Property’. So that you know the categories of things people seek to acquire, inventory and defend. If you have experience with basic accounting, you can think of Property in Toto as the human equivalent of a Balance Sheet. Eliminating the Verb “To Be” – Speaking in Existential Actions The next step in learning how to write clearly is to learn E-Prime. E-prime will force you to write in operational language. Writing in operational language is very hard at first – unless you learned programming first. Because, like Propertarianism, programming is an operational and existential (computable) language. Writing in Operational Grammar (sentence structure) Next, learn how to write sentences in operational grammar. Writing and speaking operationally teaches you what you know and don’t know. We humans use a lot of cheats to lie to ourselves and others about what we understand and don’t understand. It’s very hard to write operationally in full sentences if you don’t know what you’re talking about. Conversely, it helps you learn what it is that you don’t know. And it usually turns out we are vastly overconfident in what we think we know. Structuring Arguments as Functions Just as the US Law is very close to writing software, Propertarianism is close to writing software. In fact, it’s much, much closer to writing software than the US Law, because like programming, all statements are testable, and don’t require you to resort to ‘intuition’. Via Negativa – Evolution by Incremental Suppression The next step is to learn the use of Common, Judge Discovered, Natural Law as a means of incremental suppression of parasitism, and Testimonial Truth as the method of conducting due diligence, and surviving involuntary warranty against the Methods of Parasitism.   STRICT CONSTRUCTION Strictly Constructed Law And Contract It’s not that different from programming, which any reasonably intelligent lawyer that can program a bit will readily observe. The Structure of a Program or Contract ———————————————————— 1 – Purpose (Whereas these conditions exist) 2 – Returns (and whereas we wish to produce these ends) 3 – Constants and Variables (definitions constructed) 4 – Objects (constructions from base types / “first principles”) 5 – Libraries and Includes ( we refer to these libraries, objects, definitions) 6 – Functions (clauses that can be performed) 7 – Event Listeners ( criteria that invokes clauses) 8 – Operations (assignments of value, comparisons of value) 9 – Termination (termination conditions – no infinite loops)   The only thing preventing law from strict construction was the definition of the first principle from which all constants, variables, objects, operations, and functions are derived:   1 – Productive 2 – Fully informed (and truthful) 3 – Warrantied 4 – Voluntary Exchange 5 – Constrained to externality of the same criteria.   THE GRAMMAR Operationalism like any legal language, or programming language, is grammatically burdensome. It requires you to take your sentence structure to the next level of abstraction and exit the passive voice entirely, as well as all use of the verb to-be. So, as a language, it requires more planning. Just like English requires more planning than other languages do already. For most people it will be easier if you jot your ideas down however they occur to you, then translate them in to operational language. Doing so will show you HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW about what it is that you THINK you know. Furthermore it prevents OTHERS from claiming that they know something before audiences less skilled and informed as you are. If you translate your work into operational language it will not take very long before you start to write that way habitually. EXPLANATION Language is actually a pretty weak construct compared to visualization. We must serially construct context and description out of shared meaning, and then constantly correct for perceived misinterpretation, incomprehension, and our own error. Use of the passive voice is intuitive because it places the subject (which is precise) at the beginning of the sentence rather than the verb (actions) which are more general and less contextual. And when we speak in operational language it is the VERBS that take precedence, and the nouns serve only as context for the verbs. So it is counter – intuitive to be very specific about the verbs which are general. Usually we build context out of nouns, and related and color them with verbs and pronouns. But in Operationalism we are (counter intuitively and verbally burdensomely), describing a sequence of actions with greater import than the nouns. OPERATIONAL GRAMMARactor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result,actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, resultactor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result“The people, ever desirous of {A}, take actions {B}, upon these contexts {C}, to produce {D} change in state, thereby attempting to possess {E}, including externalities {F}, which we can judge as objectively G (moral, amoral, immoral or true, undecidable, false).”   In Sovereignty (Natural Law), we have the full set of knowledge to work with and therefore a complete LANGUAGE to work with: psychology(Acquisitionism), epistemology, ethics (property in toto), politics, aesthetics, and GRAMMAR.   FROM ARGUMENT TO LAW If you add just a few requirements to that grammar, you get formal law constructed from natural law.   {terms and definitions }-We … (who)-Whereas we have observed … (definition of state )-Whereas we desire … (definition of desired state)-We propose …. (series of actions to change state)and we argue …. (how the desired state, the propositions, do not violate the one law of reciprocity.)-Even though this argument is dependent upon … (prior laws)and would be reversed if (prior laws were falsified, or conditions had changed),-And we warranty this argument by ( skin in the game ).-Signed…. -Juried…. …. -Adjudicated.…. …. …. -Recorded.   This is an incremental improvement to the natural, common, judge discovered law of Anglo-Saxons that Jefferson and Adams attempted to formalize in the US constitution – but failed. Our principal function is to incrementally improve that natural law to include the lessons we have learned from over two hundred years of the American experience, in yet another improvement over the hundreds of years of the English experience, and thousands of years of the various Germanic, Latin, Greek, and Aryan European traditions.

    BREAKING THE WORST HABIT: THE COPULA

    WHAT DOES THE WORD ‘IS’ MEAN? (THE “COPULA”) ” I promise the subject exists as the experience of… “ The cat is black = “I promise if you look at the cat you will perceive it as the color black, as will anyone else that observes it.”   WHY DO I CARE? WHY DO YOU CARE? If you cannot make your argument without the word ‘is’ then you are almost surely engaging in fallacy. Almost every criticism I receive is constructed out of conveniently self-deceptive confirmation bias using justificationary phrasings.   IS (EXISTS) REFERS TO:  1) Exists (identity) 3) Exists in this location or time (Space and Time) 2) Exists with this or these properties (Properties) 4) Exists with the properties of this class. (Categories)   We use the verb to-be for the same reason we give names to complex processes, and the same reason mathematicians call functions ‘numbers’: because it’s a verbal convenience that reduces our effort in organizing spoken words. ie:shortcuts.   MISUSE We tend to misuse the verb ‘is’ in order:   1) use the ‘verbal simplification’ of ‘is’ to obscure our lack of understanding of the subject matter – which if stated operationally would demonstrate our incompetence with the subject.   2) to equate that which is not equal in order to justify a fallacy.   3) conflate experience, action, and existence – which are three points of view. We do not conflate first, second and third person narration, so why would we conflate experience, action, and existence? We do so for a number of reasons not the least of which is to attribute to experiences the argumentative weight of actions or existence. In other words, to lie that an experience is a cost.   (Although to women and beta males, untrained in mental discipline this solipsism seems to be a common defect they adhere to in order to preserve their illusions – almost always status related.)   4) All of the above: to obscure our ignorance, to equate as equal that which is not, and to conflate experience action and existence in order to attribute cost to the experience of emotions.   THE DISCIPLINE OF GRAMMAR IS BEHIND THE TIMES The very reference to ‘joining’ or ‘the copula’ is archaic. All human language consists of the construction of sets of analogies to experience by the transfer of properties by analogies.   The verb to be functions as a promise of perceivable properties   Sure, grammar is helpful for teachers of the young that wish to explain word order, and usage, but word order and usage are different from meaning. We would be far better off in teaching grammar, logic, and rhetoric by reducing our study of language to it’s constituent parts of communication: analogies to experience through the use of category(set) and property.   It may be helpful teach the young grammatical usage by repetition(as a craft), but when we come to logic and rhetoric (adult conversation), and in particular argument (the pursuit of truth) then we can also teach grammar as the branch of logic that it is: sets and properties. Meaning that colloquial, craftsmanly, and logical language evolve with our abilities just as ethics evolve from imitative, to virtuous, to rules, to outcomes. Just as mathematics evolves from arithmetic, to accounting, algebra, to geometry and trigonometry, to calculus, to statistics. Just as science evolves from that which is observable(human scale), that which exists up to the limits of human scale(Newtonian), to that which exists beyond human scale (relativity), to that which exists at super and sub scales (the missing theory of everything).   So try to make your argument without the word ‘is’. Look at the paragraphs above and observe how infrequently I use it, and that those few times I do, I use it as reference to existential properties.   But then, it is not those of us who wish to advance false ideas that wish to study this technique, but those of us who wish to police the commons against the multitude of pollutions created by the wishful thinking and outright deceit of well meaning fools, and ill meaning craftsmen.

    ENDING CONFLATION WITH DEFLATION

    Conflation and De-conflation (or Deflation) in Argument1 – CONFLATION TO COMMUNICATE VS DECONFLATION TO INNOVATE I’m not necessarily objecting to the conflation of experience, action, observation, and existence, because otherwise we could not produce literature and art, the purpose of which is loading and framing in order to attribute value through shared experience, to ideas. But I want to point out the consequences of conflationary( monopoly ) and deflationary (competing) models by which civilizations produce and use knowledge.   2 – DECONFLATION AND COMPETITION VS CONFLATION AND AUTHORITARIANISM In the western tradition, we maintained separate disciplines for Law, Religion, and ….well… “Theory”, or what we call ‘science”. Or Religion: what we should do, Theory, how we do it, and Law, what we must not do. In the west , our civic disciplines are divided into the common law; contractual politics that are limited by that common law;   Our celebrations and festivals and art function as our ‘church’ experience (bonding), and our mythology as our literature (aspirations).   Our science and technology and commerce function as their own discipline inspired by religion and limited by law.   Our success at discovering truth proper (scientific truth) is due to our evolution of empirical contractual law, independent of the state, independent of religion,   We divided the related properties of existence, and thereby deflated them just as all human thought consists of a process of deflation (increasing information), free association (pattern recognition), and hypothesis (ideation).   3 – COMPARISONS Other civilizations that did NOT start with sovereign contractualism did not do this, and they retained conflation, in order to retain authoritarianism. (fertile crescent, east Asia). Monotheism, uniting law, religion, and even a pretense of existence into a literature, created the most conflationary totalitarianism yet developed. Law, politics, religion, and science deflated those same concepts and left them not only open to further investigation and evolution, but prevented the deception that arose from the conflation of manipulation of the physical world(cafts and science), dispute resolution(law), cooperative action(trade), common aspiration(religion), and education.   The result in every civilization and in every era is that conflation led to stagnation. and deflation led to innovation. (We can go through every civilization. Fukuyama does it for us actually.)   4 – WE ALL SEEK TO ESCAPE THE COST OF DUE DILIGENCE All of us seek opportunities and aspirational information provides us with opportunities. We all want something for nothing, and we feel intellectual opportunities are the most valuable ‘freebie’ we can obtain. Moreover, we can read books and decide ourselves, rather than enter into production of goods and services, production of commons, production of arts, or production of offspring – all of which require cooperation with those who differ in knowledge, opinion and desire from us. Which is why many of us seek to use philosophy, like religion, like science, as an authoritarian method of decidability rather than a voluntary exchange of promises, contracts, goods, services, commons, and liabilities.   All of us seek to avoid limits upon us, and so we seek to separate the limits of cost, and the limits of morality, the limits of cooperation, and the limits of law, and by doing so the limits of reality. Philosophy notoriously throughout history differs from Law and science, by ignoring costs (effort, resources, time, and money), which is why it’s failed to retain independence from religion in the modern academy.   5 – THE ENLIGHTENMENTS AND THEIR OPPOSITIONS The Anglo enlightenment, beginning with Bacon’s creation of empiricism by applying the methods of the common law, to the methods of scientific investigation, was terribly disruptive to the non-contractual peoples, even though it was natural to the Anglo-Saxons (north sea peoples) who had been operating a contractual government since at least the 700’s if not earlier. The English revolution was painful but was eventually settled by contract – as is traditional in Anglo-Saxon civilization, and remains today in the USA.   The French enlightenment was written as a literature of moral persuasion, in order to protect itself from empiricism and contractualism. And its revolution destroyed French civilization, created state currency financed total war, and force the uniting of German princedoms in response. That this effort was merely an attack on the land holders in both private (noble) and church hands is obvious to us. That this ended French contribution to western civilization is less so. That it has been the sponsor for Marxism and Islamism are less obvious. France fell from the stage and without interference from other nations would be German colony today.   The German enlightenment used not empiricism, and not moral literature, but rationalist literature (Kant) in order to protect its social order from empiricism and contractualism that threatened the hierarchy that constitutes German ‘duty’. Kant replaced Germanic Christianity not with science but with rationalist literature. He spawned the continental philosophical movement retaining conflation which has tried every bit of verbal trickery to retain conflation while proposing alternate methods of INTERPRETING and VALUING what we experience, but not better methods of ACTING upon the universe we exist within. in other words, the Germans remain desperate to restore religion. Unfortunately, the Germans were cut short in their maturity by the entrapment between the Bolshevik/soviets who wanted to obtain eastern Europe, and conquer Europe, to defeat deflationary empirical contractualism – and the Anglos who wanted to maintain the balance of power. And the Germans who had spread what remains of Hanseatic civilization across central and eastern Europe with members of her own nation, and wished to defend them.   The Jewish enlightenment expanded on the French and German by creating the great authoritarian pseudosciences: Boazian anthropology (ant-Darwinian), Freudian psychology (anti-Nietzsche restorationism), and Marxist socialist (anti contractualism), and even Cantorian mathematical Platonism (anti-materialism), Frankfurt-school criticism (anti aristocratic ethics), and combined it not just with press, but with new mass media, and new consumers with disposable income from the consumer capitalist industrial revolution. Out of the Jewish enlightenment, we get the horrors of the Bolsheviks, the soviets, the Maoists, and world communism. 100M dead. And at present, we are about to lose Europe for the second time in two thousand years to another wave of ignorance.   Without bolshevism and communism we would very likely never had the world wars, and would still retain the best system of government ever evolved by man: Juridical monarchy, a market for commons by houses representing classes, a market for goods and services, and a market for reproduction, all under the rule of law.   6 – THE COST OF CONFLATION AND DECEPTION What has been the cost of each of these failed enlightenments? What has been the cost of the Jewish alone? What of napoleon? The British was a trivial tribal dispute between the (failed) corporate-republicans and the (successful) national-monarchists.   What if the British enlightenment hadn’t been cut short by the conflicts (counter enlightenments) of the French, German, Jewish and Russians? What if the Greeks had finished their invention of the industrial revolution? What if Justinian hadn’t closed the stoic and Greek schools, and forcibly indoctrinated Europeans into mysticism instead of literacy and reason? What if the RESTORATION OF DECONFLATION imposed on the west by the first great deception of authoritarian monotheism had not been necessary?   Most of the great lies in history are created by conflation, and all our great achievements in dragging mankind out of ignorance and poverty have been achieved through information provided by deflation and competition.   SO while as a human I can empathize with the desire to assist in COMMUNICATION through conflation – thereby allowing us to impose values upon ideas, during education, and allowing us to experience life through the words of other minds. That is very different from the act of conflation in philosophy which appears in large part, whether literary philosophy, moral philosophy, or religious philosophy, to be nothing more than the use of subterfuge (the use of suggestion under the influence of suspension of disbelief), to cause either submission or agitation by artful deceit.   So just as we must have communication and education (conflation) we must have analysis and prosecution(deflation). Without both tools, (literature for education, law for deflation) we cannot protect ourselves from the greatest crimes in history.   Because outside of the great plagues, philosophers and prophets are responsible for more death and destruction, ignorance and poverty, susceptibility to starvation and disease than any general ever dreamed of being.   So contrary to giving philosophers a license to special pleading, my position is that the evidence is in, and that unless words are backed by warranty that they do no harm, the are no different from any other product of man. And that while no producer of goods, services, and ideas, wishes to be accountable and to warranty his materials, actions, and words, that we must constrain those people such that no intellectual products, like no services, and like no material goods can enter the market for knowledge any more so than goods and services can enter the market for consumption.   My assessment of history is that the jurists and scientist do all the work, and the prophets and the philosophers take all the credit, and us it like today’s marketers and advertisers for personal gain despite the drastic consequences of their deceptions.   So I tend to damn philosophy or literature that is objectively criminal, regardless of the intentions of the producers and distributors of it.   7 – WHY CAN WE NOT WARRANTY OUR SPEECH? I have no idea why, in an era of mass manufacture and distribution of information that we do not require the same increase in due diligence against harm, that we have incrementally added to the production of goods and services.   If we can police polite speech (political correctness) against shame by the true, then why can we not police philosophical speech against damage by the false and immoral?   We cannot ever know what is good or true until we test them. We can, however, know that is bad and false. If it is bad and false we can either regulate(prior constraint) in the continental model, or enforce involuntary warranty(post facto restitution) in the American model. My opinion is that regulation creates corruption and restitution creates quality.   So as to your preference for conflationary philosophy, I would say that as long as you would warranty that your conflation does not harm, then it seem you have nothing to worry about. But if your use of conflation does harm, then you do.   And if we had the same defense against deception that we have against every other kind of fraud, that there would be very few philosophers – and the few we had, would be of much higher caliber rather than simply those who write the rationalist equivalent of science fiction and fantasy, under the pretense of possibility, thus inspiring people to the social equivalent of yelling fire in the theatre.   8 – CLOSING There is only one moral law of nature: do no harm. Everything that does not harm, is by definition good. One thing may be better good than another. But that is a matter of preference and taste, not of truth,   No free rides. No special pleading. Ideas produce more harm than material goods by orders of magnitudes.  

    THE LOGIC OF STRICT CONSTRUCTION

      1) Everyone acts to acquire. Life is an expensive means of defeating entropy. Acting improves acquisition – at additional cost. Memory improves acquisition – at additional cost. reason improves acquisition – at additional cost. cooperation improves acquisition – at additional cost.   2) We act in furtherance of our reproductive strategy.   3) Male and Female reproductive strategies are in conflict. The female seeks to breed impulsively where it benefits her lineage, and then force the cost of her offspring on the tribe, and to further her offspring regardless of merit. The male seeks to breed impulsively wherever it does not harm his lineage, and to create a tribe capable of resisting conquest by other males – and as such males act meritocratic-ally. Men are political and divided into kin and non-kin – the universe is male. For women, men are marginally indifferent herdsmen of women. Women live in a world of women, and both men and the universe are alien.   4) Humans compete for status because status provides discounts on opportunities to acquire – especially mates and allies in cooperation. We can identify at least three horizontal axis of class division: biological (reproductive desirability), social (status desirability), economic (wealth desirability) – as well as their undesirable opposites.   5) There exist only three means of coercing other humans to cooperate with on one means or end vs. cooperate with others on different means or ends. These three means of coercion can be used to construct three vertical axis of class specialization: coercion by force(conservatism/masculine), coercion by gossip(progressivism/feminine), coercion by remuneration (libertarianism / neutral masculine). Human elites are formed by those who specialize in one or more of these means of coercion. (gossip: public intellectuals and priests. force: military and political. exchange: voluntary organizations, including the voluntary organization of production.   6) Language is purely justificationary negotiation in furtherance of our acquisition by these three means. ergo: All ‘belief’ is justification to the self and others in furtherance of acquisition. It is meaningless. Statements of justification only provide us with information necessary to deduce what it is that we wish to acquire.   7) Cooperation is a disproportionately more productive means of acquisition than individual production.   8) We seek discounts in our acquisitions. Some of these discounts are productive and moral and encourage cooperation, and some of them are unproductive and immoral, discourage cooperation, and invite retaliation.   9) The only moral acquisition is one in which one either homesteads something new, or obtains it by productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, where external transfers are limited to the same criteria.   10) Aristotle’s ‘golden mean’ is an inarticulate primitive expression of the supply-demand curve. All human acquisition takes place within the pressures of supply and demand. As such all explanations of human action must be produced using supply and demand curves: the golden mean.   11) All human considerations and consequent actions take place in high causal density, choices determined by means of opportunity costs, and any analysis requires we show the choices that an individual or group is considering. (Full Accounting).   12) We cooperate and coerce in large numbers, as classes with common reproductive interests to using narratives at every scale. Science and moral law are the only means of resolving conflicts between these narratives. Propertarian analysis provides means of amoral analysis, argument and decidability between these loaded, framed, and obscured arguments.   13) Groups evolve evolutionary strategies and supporting narratives. While none of these strategies by any given group is fully moral, it is still true that we can compare strategies as more and less objectively moral. We can measure the differences in objective morality by the degree of suppression of free riding in that given society.   14) In all political matters ultimate decidability is provided by a bias to suicidal, proletarian and dysgenic, or competitive, aristocratic and eugenic reproduction. The myth of equality (the Christian mythos) was let loose by the middle class takeover of the aristocratic governments, and the eventual enfranchisement of women whose reproductive strategy under industrial production is dysgenic – reversing 7,000 years of indo European genetic pacification (eugenic evolution). This is a very unpleasant and impolitic topic. But it is where we find decidability.   INCENTIVES AS ACQUSITION 1) Take any circumstance in which someone is attempting to persuade someone else. 2) Identify the reproductive strategy of the speaker (largely by gender, class, and coercive technique.) 3) Identify the property-en-toto that the speaker is attempting to acquire. 4) Determine if his or her method is advocating a moral transfer(productive) or an immoral transfer (parasitism). 5) Determine which discounts (thefts) he or she is attempting to engage in, or which premiums (payments) he or she is offering in exchange. 6) State the user’s request in amoral terms free of loading, framing, or overloading. In other words, make a purely logical argument free of sentimental loading. 7) Fully expand all sentences in operational grammar.   You will not be able to construct a positive argument unless you are honest and truthful, and understand what it is that you seek to exchange.   You will easily identify:   8) When you have a complete description of all actors, actions, property in toto, and transfers you will have constructed a proof. But you must understand what a proof means: it means it is possible. There may be other proofs that produce the same or different descriptions (algorithms). But you will rapidly defeat all arguments that attempt to advocate for an involuntary transfer or cost imposition.  

    AN EXAMPLE: EXPANDING A SENTENCE

    (undone) (use liars paradox as an example)

    AN EXAMPLE: DEFINING A TERM

    QUESTION: “WHAT IS EVIL?”ANALYSIS:1) Analyze the Question: The question itself is misleading – the phrasing is a parlor trick. It takes advantage of the victim’s susceptibility to historical and moral Framing: the victim naturally desires to answer the question as stated even though the use of the generic verb ‘is’ frames the answer. Many Victorian parlor tricks posed false moral dilemmas as a means of providing entertainment. This question is constructed in that same manner. The question should instead be phrased as either “Define Evil” or more thoroughly “Given that we use the term evil in a variety of contexts what does the term mean in those contexts – i.e.: subjective analysis. Given the set of meanings in those contexts, are any or all of those meanings impossible or self-contradictory? i.e.: objective analysis. And of what remains, can such a thing as evil exist?”   2) Explore Evolutionary History: What can we learn from the evolution of the term? Answer: There is a term we call “Evil”. The term has an etymology – a history – a time at which it was invented. The meaning of the term was originally political – to denote ‘a competing way of life against our interests’. The term was then expanded by analogy to address individual actions. The term was then anthropomorphically expanded by analogy to cover random (natural) events. The term was then applied as a criticism of monotheistic divinity in order to illustrate a self contradiction. The term is now – post Darwin and under democratic secular socialism– becoming loaded and archaic. Like most things, understanding something’s history tells us far more than understanding its current state.   3) Collect All Possible Examples: What are all the examples we can think of, or find that refer to the term in context? Both in-group (culture) and out-group? Answer: Murder. Sibling murder. Killing an ant. Undermining institutions. Creating a moral hazard. Selling an immoral product. Plotting terrorism. What about the DC sniper versus the top military sniper? The list is long, and I’m not going to be creative here, other that to suggest that any inventory of examples we create has to be fairly large, and cover the individual, institutional, local political, cultural-political, and geo-political spectrums if this exercise will have any value.   4) Determine Population Dimension: Does the term apply to individuals or groups or both? Answer: Both. From our examples, it applies to both individuals and groups of both actors and victims.   5) Determine Time Dimension: What about different economic eras? Are ‘evil and immoral’ considered to be different under hunter-gathering, agrarian, manorial, industrial, urban technological eras? Answer: yes. Markedly so. Hunter gatherer, agrarian, industrial, and urban ethics are markedly different.   6) Separate Actions from Actors from Consequences: What is the difference between an evil person and an evil action, or an evil semi-autonomous process (a virus, or a viral meme)? Answer: A person is evil with intention and repetition. An action produces evil results regardless of intention, and is evil only by analogy. A process produces evil results but is only evil by analogy.   7) Separate Subjective from Objective: Emotions – how do emotions play into determining ill mannered, unethical, immoral and evil actions, individuals and groups??   Answer:  

    1. a) Emotions are descriptions of changes in state of perception of an individual’s assets. Moreover, they are reactions to descriptions of changes in state of capital. (Yes, really.) Nothing more. Given the differences in knowledge and experience (and intelligence) emotions are subjective descriptions of the perception of each individual’s inventory.
    2. b) Empathy is an ability to imitate the experience of the change in state of other individuals. It is pre-verbal communication of changes in property (capital).

    8) Narrow the definition until it is exclusive: What can we learn by determining what is not considered ‘Evil’, or which is covered by other terms? What ‘bad actions’ are not classified as evil? Answer? Accidents. And errors that are not repeated.   9) Determine Limits Of The Cases: What is the difference between ill mannered, unethical, immoral, and evil actions? Are displays of bad manners evil? Is someone unethical classifiable as evil? Is someone immoral classifiable as evil? Aren’t unethical and immoral lower bars than evil? Why? Answer: because we are all unethical and immoral at times, but evil we tend to think of ‘evil’ as repetitive systemic and intentional.   But let’s look at this carefully: lets say we have a diamond ring dealer that preys upon the dreams of the poor by selling them low-down-payment engagement rings at very high interest rates. (This example is from real life.) Then when they default on the payments he repossesses the ring, pulls the diamond for resale and melts it down. What about the mortgage broker who sold all those mortgages before the crash to people who couldn’t afford them? What about the Marxist who, despite the evidence of near genocidal consequences, still advocates Marxism? What about the Christian scientist who prays rather than takes a child to the hospital? What about the mother who advocates avoiding shots for her children? What is the difference between stealing water, and poisoning a well?   10) Further Refine into a spectrum: What is unique to ‘Evil’ that is not unique to ill-mannered, unethical, and immoral actions? Answer: Knowledge (intent), Destruction, and Frequency (repetition). Ignorance is pervasive, so a single instance that one learns from is not evil, but accidental. Repetitive actions can no longer be made in ignorance.   11) Identify Remaining Causal Dimensions: Are any of the properties we have discovered possible to express in consolidated form as a continuum?   Yes, the following continuum can be composed from the discussion:

    1. a) ACTORS: Individual->Group->Extra-Group->”Nature”
    2. b) VICTIMS: Individual->group->Humanity->Life->Universe
    3. c) KNOWLEDGE: Accidental/Made_In_Ignorance->Intentional/Made_With_Knowledge->Systemic/Habitual/Made_Without_Intent
    4. d) CAPITAL: Accumulation->Transfers->Destruction
    5. e) FREQUENCY: One-Time->Repetitive->Pervasive

    12) Graph Dimensions: Is it possible to graph these continuum in order to show their dependence upon one another (taking into consideration that more than three dimensions is difficult for humans to comprehend.) Answer: Yes. We can create six or eight before they become repetitive. [Graph any two axis, and then attempt to add third, then repeat permutations until all are covered.]   EVALUATION What do these graphs tell us about objective evil? And about evil by analogy?

    1. a) To the actor(s), knowledge is the only relevant criteria for determining whether he is objectively evil or not.
    2. b) To the victim, capital is only relevant if a transfer or destruction of capital is created. Meaning that there is a standard that must be met in order to qualify as ‘evil’.
    3. c) To the victim, the actor’s knowledge is only relevant if frequency is repetitive and the actor is a group or individual.

      Therefore, the necessary and sufficient definition of the term ‘Evil’ consists of repetitive transfer or destruction of capital.   (NOTE: This definition applies to the divinity argument as well, since by definition, the divine is all powerful and eternal and therefore repetitive.)   PROPOSITION: P.1) ‘Evil’ is an archaic term that refers to the repetitive and therefore willful or systemic destruction of capital – individual or social, by individuals, groups, or ‘nature’. Conversely, ‘Good’ is an archaic term that refers to the repetitive and therefore willful or systemic accumulation of capital – individual or social, by individuals groups or ‘nature’. P.2) ‘Immoral’ is a term that refers to anonymous involuntary transfers of capital because of informational asymmetry. Conversely, ‘Moral’ is a term that refers to refraining from conducting anonymous involuntary transfers of capital due to informational asymmetry. P.3) ‘Unethical’ is a term that refers to non-anonymous involuntary transfers of capital because of informational asymmetry. Conversely, ‘Ethical’ is a term that refers to refraining from non-anonymous involuntary transfers of capital because of informational asymmetry. P.4) ‘Ill-mannered’ is a term that refers to the non-anonymous failure to contribute to normative capital – privatization (theft) of social capital stored in norms. Conversely, ‘well-mannered’ is a term that refers to the non-anonymous contribution to normative capital by habitual demonstration of adherence to norms.   WHERE:

    1. a) ‘Capital’ consists of life, body, several property, communal (shareholder) property, informal institutions (morals, ethics, manners, myths), formal institutions (laws, government).
    2. b) ‘Transfers’ consists of the movement capital from one set of one or more people to another set of one or more people.
    3. c) The normative composition of capital, property, and institutions varies from social group to social group.
    4. d) The primary purpose of ‘manners’ is ‘Signaling’. (i.e.: class status and demonstrated fitness to the group for the purpose of mate selection and association, and pedagogy through imitation.)

    NOTE: I am unsure whether ‘capital’ in these contexts also includes opportunities. I think that ‘opportunities’ may be forced expressly outside of all ethical systems that allow for competition (research and development). Any ethical system that did not allow for competition would not survive contact with those that do. In this sense, it is possible to have ‘bad’ ethical systems and ‘good’ ethical systems depending upon one’s time preference.

    ASSERTION: 1) I believe it will not be possible to define Good and Evil, Moral, and Immoral, Ethical, and Unethical, or well-mannered, and Ill-mannered, by any other form of demarcation that would not be answered by this set of propositions.   CONCLUSION: ‘Evil’ is an archaic term that is heavily loaded with mystical connotations– primarily because it has been politically loaded by the consumer class’ public intellectuals in their desire to undermine the social and political status of the church so that they could obtaining status through control of the public dialog. (Which in itself is an economic and political process.) Evil exists as an objective political and economic classification of human actions and effects. Groups can be classified as evil, and individuals can be classified as evil, if they take actions that produce outcomes that systemically or repeatedly transfer or destroy capital. Abstract entities (nature, god) an be classified as evil by analogy because they destroy capital. Ideas can be classified as evil, and abstract processes can be classified by analogy as evil if they produce outcomes that systematically or repeatedly transfer or destroy capital. i.e. Marxism is evil. It may be the ultimate evil that man has yet discovered, since it destroys the institutions that make cooperation in a division of labor possible. Its arguable either way whether, as Nietzsche stated, that the most evil person in history is Zoroaster. And from both an eastern and western perspective, if not Zoroaster, then at least Abraham is a candidate for the most evil person in history. But the monotheistic religions pale compared to the deadliness of Marxism.  

    PROSECUTION VS JUSTIFICATION

    The end of victorian presumption in argument (how to prosecute, assuming avoidance of reciprocity, assuming theft, survival from falsification, survival from externalities….)

  • Algorithmic Law

    STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF NATURAL LAW

    This is perhaps the most difficult part of the course, and may be the most important, because it requires that you train yourself to think very clearly – and painfully realize that you may not understand or know what you think you do. (Which is its purpose). However, after the freshman level courses your ability to think, communicate, persuade, and argue will be dramatically improved and your grasp of the world rapidly improved as well. Definitions Learn to write and speak about concepts in enumerated series. Three points make a line so to speak, and all concepts can be demarcated and deconflated by referring to series (an ordered list) rather than an ‘idea’ type which allows for suggestion and conflation. (Notice how often I repeat these ‘series’ – over and over again until everyone memorizes them out of habit rather than intent.) One Law of Cooperation. The first step you’ll need to memorize is the very simple One Law of Cooperation: That to create and preserve the incentive to cooperate we must eliminate the incentive not to cooperate, and eliminate the incentive to retaliate, by limiting our actions to those that produce productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers of property in toto, limited to productive externalities (consequences both intended and unintended). Acquisitionism and Property In Toto The next step is to learn Property in Toto – or ‘Demonstrated Property’. So that you know the categories of things people seek to acquire, inventory and defend. If you have experience with basic accounting, you can think of Property in Toto as the human equivalent of a Balance Sheet. Eliminating the Verb “To Be” – Speaking in Existential Actions The next step in learning how to write clearly is to learn E-Prime. E-prime will force you to write in operational language. Writing in operational language is very hard at first – unless you learned programming first. Because, like Propertarianism, programming is an operational and existential (computable) language. Writing in Operational Grammar (sentence structure) Next, learn how to write sentences in operational grammar. Writing and speaking operationally teaches you what you know and don’t know. We humans use a lot of cheats to lie to ourselves and others about what we understand and don’t understand. It’s very hard to write operationally in full sentences if you don’t know what you’re talking about. Conversely, it helps you learn what it is that you don’t know. And it usually turns out we are vastly overconfident in what we think we know. Structuring Arguments as Functions Just as the US Law is very close to writing software, Propertarianism is close to writing software. In fact, it’s much, much closer to writing software than the US Law, because like programming, all statements are testable, and don’t require you to resort to ‘intuition’. Via Negativa – Evolution by Incremental Suppression The next step is to learn the use of Common, Judge Discovered, Natural Law as a means of incremental suppression of parasitism, and Testimonial Truth as the method of conducting due diligence, and surviving involuntary warranty against the Methods of Parasitism.   STRICT CONSTRUCTION Strictly Constructed Law And Contract It’s not that different from programming, which any reasonably intelligent lawyer that can program a bit will readily observe. The Structure of a Program or Contract ———————————————————— 1 – Purpose (Whereas these conditions exist) 2 – Returns (and whereas we wish to produce these ends) 3 – Constants and Variables (definitions constructed) 4 – Objects (constructions from base types / “first principles”) 5 – Libraries and Includes ( we refer to these libraries, objects, definitions) 6 – Functions (clauses that can be performed) 7 – Event Listeners ( criteria that invokes clauses) 8 – Operations (assignments of value, comparisons of value) 9 – Termination (termination conditions – no infinite loops)   The only thing preventing law from strict construction was the definition of the first principle from which all constants, variables, objects, operations, and functions are derived:   1 – Productive 2 – Fully informed (and truthful) 3 – Warrantied 4 – Voluntary Exchange 5 – Constrained to externality of the same criteria.   THE GRAMMAR Operationalism like any legal language, or programming language, is grammatically burdensome. It requires you to take your sentence structure to the next level of abstraction and exit the passive voice entirely, as well as all use of the verb to-be. So, as a language, it requires more planning. Just like English requires more planning than other languages do already. For most people it will be easier if you jot your ideas down however they occur to you, then translate them in to operational language. Doing so will show you HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW about what it is that you THINK you know. Furthermore it prevents OTHERS from claiming that they know something before audiences less skilled and informed as you are. If you translate your work into operational language it will not take very long before you start to write that way habitually. EXPLANATION Language is actually a pretty weak construct compared to visualization. We must serially construct context and description out of shared meaning, and then constantly correct for perceived misinterpretation, incomprehension, and our own error. Use of the passive voice is intuitive because it places the subject (which is precise) at the beginning of the sentence rather than the verb (actions) which are more general and less contextual. And when we speak in operational language it is the VERBS that take precedence, and the nouns serve only as context for the verbs. So it is counter – intuitive to be very specific about the verbs which are general. Usually we build context out of nouns, and related and color them with verbs and pronouns. But in Operationalism we are (counter intuitively and verbally burdensomely), describing a sequence of actions with greater import than the nouns. OPERATIONAL GRAMMARactor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result,actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, resultactor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result“The people, ever desirous of {A}, take actions {B}, upon these contexts {C}, to produce {D} change in state, thereby attempting to possess {E}, including externalities {F}, which we can judge as objectively G (moral, amoral, immoral or true, undecidable, false).”   In Sovereignty (Natural Law), we have the full set of knowledge to work with and therefore a complete LANGUAGE to work with: psychology(Acquisitionism), epistemology, ethics (property in toto), politics, aesthetics, and GRAMMAR.   FROM ARGUMENT TO LAW If you add just a few requirements to that grammar, you get formal law constructed from natural law.   {terms and definitions }-We … (who)-Whereas we have observed … (definition of state )-Whereas we desire … (definition of desired state)-We propose …. (series of actions to change state)and we argue …. (how the desired state, the propositions, do not violate the one law of reciprocity.)-Even though this argument is dependent upon … (prior laws)and would be reversed if (prior laws were falsified, or conditions had changed),-And we warranty this argument by ( skin in the game ).-Signed…. -Juried…. …. -Adjudicated.…. …. …. -Recorded.   This is an incremental improvement to the natural, common, judge discovered law of Anglo-Saxons that Jefferson and Adams attempted to formalize in the US constitution – but failed. Our principal function is to incrementally improve that natural law to include the lessons we have learned from over two hundred years of the American experience, in yet another improvement over the hundreds of years of the English experience, and thousands of years of the various Germanic, Latin, Greek, and Aryan European traditions.

    BREAKING THE WORST HABIT: THE COPULA

    WHAT DOES THE WORD ‘IS’ MEAN? (THE “COPULA”) ” I promise the subject exists as the experience of… “ The cat is black = “I promise if you look at the cat you will perceive it as the color black, as will anyone else that observes it.”   WHY DO I CARE? WHY DO YOU CARE? If you cannot make your argument without the word ‘is’ then you are almost surely engaging in fallacy. Almost every criticism I receive is constructed out of conveniently self-deceptive confirmation bias using justificationary phrasings.   IS (EXISTS) REFERS TO:  1) Exists (identity) 3) Exists in this location or time (Space and Time) 2) Exists with this or these properties (Properties) 4) Exists with the properties of this class. (Categories)   We use the verb to-be for the same reason we give names to complex processes, and the same reason mathematicians call functions ‘numbers’: because it’s a verbal convenience that reduces our effort in organizing spoken words. ie:shortcuts.   MISUSE We tend to misuse the verb ‘is’ in order:   1) use the ‘verbal simplification’ of ‘is’ to obscure our lack of understanding of the subject matter – which if stated operationally would demonstrate our incompetence with the subject.   2) to equate that which is not equal in order to justify a fallacy.   3) conflate experience, action, and existence – which are three points of view. We do not conflate first, second and third person narration, so why would we conflate experience, action, and existence? We do so for a number of reasons not the least of which is to attribute to experiences the argumentative weight of actions or existence. In other words, to lie that an experience is a cost.   (Although to women and beta males, untrained in mental discipline this solipsism seems to be a common defect they adhere to in order to preserve their illusions – almost always status related.)   4) All of the above: to obscure our ignorance, to equate as equal that which is not, and to conflate experience action and existence in order to attribute cost to the experience of emotions.   THE DISCIPLINE OF GRAMMAR IS BEHIND THE TIMES The very reference to ‘joining’ or ‘the copula’ is archaic. All human language consists of the construction of sets of analogies to experience by the transfer of properties by analogies.   The verb to be functions as a promise of perceivable properties   Sure, grammar is helpful for teachers of the young that wish to explain word order, and usage, but word order and usage are different from meaning. We would be far better off in teaching grammar, logic, and rhetoric by reducing our study of language to it’s constituent parts of communication: analogies to experience through the use of category(set) and property.   It may be helpful teach the young grammatical usage by repetition(as a craft), but when we come to logic and rhetoric (adult conversation), and in particular argument (the pursuit of truth) then we can also teach grammar as the branch of logic that it is: sets and properties. Meaning that colloquial, craftsmanly, and logical language evolve with our abilities just as ethics evolve from imitative, to virtuous, to rules, to outcomes. Just as mathematics evolves from arithmetic, to accounting, algebra, to geometry and trigonometry, to calculus, to statistics. Just as science evolves from that which is observable(human scale), that which exists up to the limits of human scale(Newtonian), to that which exists beyond human scale (relativity), to that which exists at super and sub scales (the missing theory of everything).   So try to make your argument without the word ‘is’. Look at the paragraphs above and observe how infrequently I use it, and that those few times I do, I use it as reference to existential properties.   But then, it is not those of us who wish to advance false ideas that wish to study this technique, but those of us who wish to police the commons against the multitude of pollutions created by the wishful thinking and outright deceit of well meaning fools, and ill meaning craftsmen.

    ENDING CONFLATION WITH DEFLATION

    Conflation and De-conflation (or Deflation) in Argument1 – CONFLATION TO COMMUNICATE VS DECONFLATION TO INNOVATE I’m not necessarily objecting to the conflation of experience, action, observation, and existence, because otherwise we could not produce literature and art, the purpose of which is loading and framing in order to attribute value through shared experience, to ideas. But I want to point out the consequences of conflationary( monopoly ) and deflationary (competing) models by which civilizations produce and use knowledge.   2 – DECONFLATION AND COMPETITION VS CONFLATION AND AUTHORITARIANISM In the western tradition, we maintained separate disciplines for Law, Religion, and ….well… “Theory”, or what we call ‘science”. Or Religion: what we should do, Theory, how we do it, and Law, what we must not do. In the west , our civic disciplines are divided into the common law; contractual politics that are limited by that common law;   Our celebrations and festivals and art function as our ‘church’ experience (bonding), and our mythology as our literature (aspirations).   Our science and technology and commerce function as their own discipline inspired by religion and limited by law.   Our success at discovering truth proper (scientific truth) is due to our evolution of empirical contractual law, independent of the state, independent of religion,   We divided the related properties of existence, and thereby deflated them just as all human thought consists of a process of deflation (increasing information), free association (pattern recognition), and hypothesis (ideation).   3 – COMPARISONS Other civilizations that did NOT start with sovereign contractualism did not do this, and they retained conflation, in order to retain authoritarianism. (fertile crescent, east Asia). Monotheism, uniting law, religion, and even a pretense of existence into a literature, created the most conflationary totalitarianism yet developed. Law, politics, religion, and science deflated those same concepts and left them not only open to further investigation and evolution, but prevented the deception that arose from the conflation of manipulation of the physical world(cafts and science), dispute resolution(law), cooperative action(trade), common aspiration(religion), and education.   The result in every civilization and in every era is that conflation led to stagnation. and deflation led to innovation. (We can go through every civilization. Fukuyama does it for us actually.)   4 – WE ALL SEEK TO ESCAPE THE COST OF DUE DILIGENCE All of us seek opportunities and aspirational information provides us with opportunities. We all want something for nothing, and we feel intellectual opportunities are the most valuable ‘freebie’ we can obtain. Moreover, we can read books and decide ourselves, rather than enter into production of goods and services, production of commons, production of arts, or production of offspring – all of which require cooperation with those who differ in knowledge, opinion and desire from us. Which is why many of us seek to use philosophy, like religion, like science, as an authoritarian method of decidability rather than a voluntary exchange of promises, contracts, goods, services, commons, and liabilities.   All of us seek to avoid limits upon us, and so we seek to separate the limits of cost, and the limits of morality, the limits of cooperation, and the limits of law, and by doing so the limits of reality. Philosophy notoriously throughout history differs from Law and science, by ignoring costs (effort, resources, time, and money), which is why it’s failed to retain independence from religion in the modern academy.   5 – THE ENLIGHTENMENTS AND THEIR OPPOSITIONS The Anglo enlightenment, beginning with Bacon’s creation of empiricism by applying the methods of the common law, to the methods of scientific investigation, was terribly disruptive to the non-contractual peoples, even though it was natural to the Anglo-Saxons (north sea peoples) who had been operating a contractual government since at least the 700’s if not earlier. The English revolution was painful but was eventually settled by contract – as is traditional in Anglo-Saxon civilization, and remains today in the USA.   The French enlightenment was written as a literature of moral persuasion, in order to protect itself from empiricism and contractualism. And its revolution destroyed French civilization, created state currency financed total war, and force the uniting of German princedoms in response. That this effort was merely an attack on the land holders in both private (noble) and church hands is obvious to us. That this ended French contribution to western civilization is less so. That it has been the sponsor for Marxism and Islamism are less obvious. France fell from the stage and without interference from other nations would be German colony today.   The German enlightenment used not empiricism, and not moral literature, but rationalist literature (Kant) in order to protect its social order from empiricism and contractualism that threatened the hierarchy that constitutes German ‘duty’. Kant replaced Germanic Christianity not with science but with rationalist literature. He spawned the continental philosophical movement retaining conflation which has tried every bit of verbal trickery to retain conflation while proposing alternate methods of INTERPRETING and VALUING what we experience, but not better methods of ACTING upon the universe we exist within. in other words, the Germans remain desperate to restore religion. Unfortunately, the Germans were cut short in their maturity by the entrapment between the Bolshevik/soviets who wanted to obtain eastern Europe, and conquer Europe, to defeat deflationary empirical contractualism – and the Anglos who wanted to maintain the balance of power. And the Germans who had spread what remains of Hanseatic civilization across central and eastern Europe with members of her own nation, and wished to defend them.   The Jewish enlightenment expanded on the French and German by creating the great authoritarian pseudosciences: Boazian anthropology (ant-Darwinian), Freudian psychology (anti-Nietzsche restorationism), and Marxist socialist (anti contractualism), and even Cantorian mathematical Platonism (anti-materialism), Frankfurt-school criticism (anti aristocratic ethics), and combined it not just with press, but with new mass media, and new consumers with disposable income from the consumer capitalist industrial revolution. Out of the Jewish enlightenment, we get the horrors of the Bolsheviks, the soviets, the Maoists, and world communism. 100M dead. And at present, we are about to lose Europe for the second time in two thousand years to another wave of ignorance.   Without bolshevism and communism we would very likely never had the world wars, and would still retain the best system of government ever evolved by man: Juridical monarchy, a market for commons by houses representing classes, a market for goods and services, and a market for reproduction, all under the rule of law.   6 – THE COST OF CONFLATION AND DECEPTION What has been the cost of each of these failed enlightenments? What has been the cost of the Jewish alone? What of napoleon? The British was a trivial tribal dispute between the (failed) corporate-republicans and the (successful) national-monarchists.   What if the British enlightenment hadn’t been cut short by the conflicts (counter enlightenments) of the French, German, Jewish and Russians? What if the Greeks had finished their invention of the industrial revolution? What if Justinian hadn’t closed the stoic and Greek schools, and forcibly indoctrinated Europeans into mysticism instead of literacy and reason? What if the RESTORATION OF DECONFLATION imposed on the west by the first great deception of authoritarian monotheism had not been necessary?   Most of the great lies in history are created by conflation, and all our great achievements in dragging mankind out of ignorance and poverty have been achieved through information provided by deflation and competition.   SO while as a human I can empathize with the desire to assist in COMMUNICATION through conflation – thereby allowing us to impose values upon ideas, during education, and allowing us to experience life through the words of other minds. That is very different from the act of conflation in philosophy which appears in large part, whether literary philosophy, moral philosophy, or religious philosophy, to be nothing more than the use of subterfuge (the use of suggestion under the influence of suspension of disbelief), to cause either submission or agitation by artful deceit.   So just as we must have communication and education (conflation) we must have analysis and prosecution(deflation). Without both tools, (literature for education, law for deflation) we cannot protect ourselves from the greatest crimes in history.   Because outside of the great plagues, philosophers and prophets are responsible for more death and destruction, ignorance and poverty, susceptibility to starvation and disease than any general ever dreamed of being.   So contrary to giving philosophers a license to special pleading, my position is that the evidence is in, and that unless words are backed by warranty that they do no harm, the are no different from any other product of man. And that while no producer of goods, services, and ideas, wishes to be accountable and to warranty his materials, actions, and words, that we must constrain those people such that no intellectual products, like no services, and like no material goods can enter the market for knowledge any more so than goods and services can enter the market for consumption.   My assessment of history is that the jurists and scientist do all the work, and the prophets and the philosophers take all the credit, and us it like today’s marketers and advertisers for personal gain despite the drastic consequences of their deceptions.   So I tend to damn philosophy or literature that is objectively criminal, regardless of the intentions of the producers and distributors of it.   7 – WHY CAN WE NOT WARRANTY OUR SPEECH? I have no idea why, in an era of mass manufacture and distribution of information that we do not require the same increase in due diligence against harm, that we have incrementally added to the production of goods and services.   If we can police polite speech (political correctness) against shame by the true, then why can we not police philosophical speech against damage by the false and immoral?   We cannot ever know what is good or true until we test them. We can, however, know that is bad and false. If it is bad and false we can either regulate(prior constraint) in the continental model, or enforce involuntary warranty(post facto restitution) in the American model. My opinion is that regulation creates corruption and restitution creates quality.   So as to your preference for conflationary philosophy, I would say that as long as you would warranty that your conflation does not harm, then it seem you have nothing to worry about. But if your use of conflation does harm, then you do.   And if we had the same defense against deception that we have against every other kind of fraud, that there would be very few philosophers – and the few we had, would be of much higher caliber rather than simply those who write the rationalist equivalent of science fiction and fantasy, under the pretense of possibility, thus inspiring people to the social equivalent of yelling fire in the theatre.   8 – CLOSING There is only one moral law of nature: do no harm. Everything that does not harm, is by definition good. One thing may be better good than another. But that is a matter of preference and taste, not of truth,   No free rides. No special pleading. Ideas produce more harm than material goods by orders of magnitudes.  

    THE LOGIC OF STRICT CONSTRUCTION

      1) Everyone acts to acquire. Life is an expensive means of defeating entropy. Acting improves acquisition – at additional cost. Memory improves acquisition – at additional cost. reason improves acquisition – at additional cost. cooperation improves acquisition – at additional cost.   2) We act in furtherance of our reproductive strategy.   3) Male and Female reproductive strategies are in conflict. The female seeks to breed impulsively where it benefits her lineage, and then force the cost of her offspring on the tribe, and to further her offspring regardless of merit. The male seeks to breed impulsively wherever it does not harm his lineage, and to create a tribe capable of resisting conquest by other males – and as such males act meritocratic-ally. Men are political and divided into kin and non-kin – the universe is male. For women, men are marginally indifferent herdsmen of women. Women live in a world of women, and both men and the universe are alien.   4) Humans compete for status because status provides discounts on opportunities to acquire – especially mates and allies in cooperation. We can identify at least three horizontal axis of class division: biological (reproductive desirability), social (status desirability), economic (wealth desirability) – as well as their undesirable opposites.   5) There exist only three means of coercing other humans to cooperate with on one means or end vs. cooperate with others on different means or ends. These three means of coercion can be used to construct three vertical axis of class specialization: coercion by force(conservatism/masculine), coercion by gossip(progressivism/feminine), coercion by remuneration (libertarianism / neutral masculine). Human elites are formed by those who specialize in one or more of these means of coercion. (gossip: public intellectuals and priests. force: military and political. exchange: voluntary organizations, including the voluntary organization of production.   6) Language is purely justificationary negotiation in furtherance of our acquisition by these three means. ergo: All ‘belief’ is justification to the self and others in furtherance of acquisition. It is meaningless. Statements of justification only provide us with information necessary to deduce what it is that we wish to acquire.   7) Cooperation is a disproportionately more productive means of acquisition than individual production.   8) We seek discounts in our acquisitions. Some of these discounts are productive and moral and encourage cooperation, and some of them are unproductive and immoral, discourage cooperation, and invite retaliation.   9) The only moral acquisition is one in which one either homesteads something new, or obtains it by productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, where external transfers are limited to the same criteria.   10) Aristotle’s ‘golden mean’ is an inarticulate primitive expression of the supply-demand curve. All human acquisition takes place within the pressures of supply and demand. As such all explanations of human action must be produced using supply and demand curves: the golden mean.   11) All human considerations and consequent actions take place in high causal density, choices determined by means of opportunity costs, and any analysis requires we show the choices that an individual or group is considering. (Full Accounting).   12) We cooperate and coerce in large numbers, as classes with common reproductive interests to using narratives at every scale. Science and moral law are the only means of resolving conflicts between these narratives. Propertarian analysis provides means of amoral analysis, argument and decidability between these loaded, framed, and obscured arguments.   13) Groups evolve evolutionary strategies and supporting narratives. While none of these strategies by any given group is fully moral, it is still true that we can compare strategies as more and less objectively moral. We can measure the differences in objective morality by the degree of suppression of free riding in that given society.   14) In all political matters ultimate decidability is provided by a bias to suicidal, proletarian and dysgenic, or competitive, aristocratic and eugenic reproduction. The myth of equality (the Christian mythos) was let loose by the middle class takeover of the aristocratic governments, and the eventual enfranchisement of women whose reproductive strategy under industrial production is dysgenic – reversing 7,000 years of indo European genetic pacification (eugenic evolution). This is a very unpleasant and impolitic topic. But it is where we find decidability.   INCENTIVES AS ACQUSITION 1) Take any circumstance in which someone is attempting to persuade someone else. 2) Identify the reproductive strategy of the speaker (largely by gender, class, and coercive technique.) 3) Identify the property-en-toto that the speaker is attempting to acquire. 4) Determine if his or her method is advocating a moral transfer(productive) or an immoral transfer (parasitism). 5) Determine which discounts (thefts) he or she is attempting to engage in, or which premiums (payments) he or she is offering in exchange. 6) State the user’s request in amoral terms free of loading, framing, or overloading. In other words, make a purely logical argument free of sentimental loading. 7) Fully expand all sentences in operational grammar.   You will not be able to construct a positive argument unless you are honest and truthful, and understand what it is that you seek to exchange.   You will easily identify:   8) When you have a complete description of all actors, actions, property in toto, and transfers you will have constructed a proof. But you must understand what a proof means: it means it is possible. There may be other proofs that produce the same or different descriptions (algorithms). But you will rapidly defeat all arguments that attempt to advocate for an involuntary transfer or cost imposition.  

    AN EXAMPLE: EXPANDING A SENTENCE

    (undone) (use liars paradox as an example)

    AN EXAMPLE: DEFINING A TERM

    QUESTION: “WHAT IS EVIL?”ANALYSIS:1) Analyze the Question: The question itself is misleading – the phrasing is a parlor trick. It takes advantage of the victim’s susceptibility to historical and moral Framing: the victim naturally desires to answer the question as stated even though the use of the generic verb ‘is’ frames the answer. Many Victorian parlor tricks posed false moral dilemmas as a means of providing entertainment. This question is constructed in that same manner. The question should instead be phrased as either “Define Evil” or more thoroughly “Given that we use the term evil in a variety of contexts what does the term mean in those contexts – i.e.: subjective analysis. Given the set of meanings in those contexts, are any or all of those meanings impossible or self-contradictory? i.e.: objective analysis. And of what remains, can such a thing as evil exist?”   2) Explore Evolutionary History: What can we learn from the evolution of the term? Answer: There is a term we call “Evil”. The term has an etymology – a history – a time at which it was invented. The meaning of the term was originally political – to denote ‘a competing way of life against our interests’. The term was then expanded by analogy to address individual actions. The term was then anthropomorphically expanded by analogy to cover random (natural) events. The term was then applied as a criticism of monotheistic divinity in order to illustrate a self contradiction. The term is now – post Darwin and under democratic secular socialism– becoming loaded and archaic. Like most things, understanding something’s history tells us far more than understanding its current state.   3) Collect All Possible Examples: What are all the examples we can think of, or find that refer to the term in context? Both in-group (culture) and out-group? Answer: Murder. Sibling murder. Killing an ant. Undermining institutions. Creating a moral hazard. Selling an immoral product. Plotting terrorism. What about the DC sniper versus the top military sniper? The list is long, and I’m not going to be creative here, other that to suggest that any inventory of examples we create has to be fairly large, and cover the individual, institutional, local political, cultural-political, and geo-political spectrums if this exercise will have any value.   4) Determine Population Dimension: Does the term apply to individuals or groups or both? Answer: Both. From our examples, it applies to both individuals and groups of both actors and victims.   5) Determine Time Dimension: What about different economic eras? Are ‘evil and immoral’ considered to be different under hunter-gathering, agrarian, manorial, industrial, urban technological eras? Answer: yes. Markedly so. Hunter gatherer, agrarian, industrial, and urban ethics are markedly different.   6) Separate Actions from Actors from Consequences: What is the difference between an evil person and an evil action, or an evil semi-autonomous process (a virus, or a viral meme)? Answer: A person is evil with intention and repetition. An action produces evil results regardless of intention, and is evil only by analogy. A process produces evil results but is only evil by analogy.   7) Separate Subjective from Objective: Emotions – how do emotions play into determining ill mannered, unethical, immoral and evil actions, individuals and groups??   Answer:  

    1. a) Emotions are descriptions of changes in state of perception of an individual’s assets. Moreover, they are reactions to descriptions of changes in state of capital. (Yes, really.) Nothing more. Given the differences in knowledge and experience (and intelligence) emotions are subjective descriptions of the perception of each individual’s inventory.
    2. b) Empathy is an ability to imitate the experience of the change in state of other individuals. It is pre-verbal communication of changes in property (capital).

    8) Narrow the definition until it is exclusive: What can we learn by determining what is not considered ‘Evil’, or which is covered by other terms? What ‘bad actions’ are not classified as evil? Answer? Accidents. And errors that are not repeated.   9) Determine Limits Of The Cases: What is the difference between ill mannered, unethical, immoral, and evil actions? Are displays of bad manners evil? Is someone unethical classifiable as evil? Is someone immoral classifiable as evil? Aren’t unethical and immoral lower bars than evil? Why? Answer: because we are all unethical and immoral at times, but evil we tend to think of ‘evil’ as repetitive systemic and intentional.   But let’s look at this carefully: lets say we have a diamond ring dealer that preys upon the dreams of the poor by selling them low-down-payment engagement rings at very high interest rates. (This example is from real life.) Then when they default on the payments he repossesses the ring, pulls the diamond for resale and melts it down. What about the mortgage broker who sold all those mortgages before the crash to people who couldn’t afford them? What about the Marxist who, despite the evidence of near genocidal consequences, still advocates Marxism? What about the Christian scientist who prays rather than takes a child to the hospital? What about the mother who advocates avoiding shots for her children? What is the difference between stealing water, and poisoning a well?   10) Further Refine into a spectrum: What is unique to ‘Evil’ that is not unique to ill-mannered, unethical, and immoral actions? Answer: Knowledge (intent), Destruction, and Frequency (repetition). Ignorance is pervasive, so a single instance that one learns from is not evil, but accidental. Repetitive actions can no longer be made in ignorance.   11) Identify Remaining Causal Dimensions: Are any of the properties we have discovered possible to express in consolidated form as a continuum?   Yes, the following continuum can be composed from the discussion:

    1. a) ACTORS: Individual->Group->Extra-Group->”Nature”
    2. b) VICTIMS: Individual->group->Humanity->Life->Universe
    3. c) KNOWLEDGE: Accidental/Made_In_Ignorance->Intentional/Made_With_Knowledge->Systemic/Habitual/Made_Without_Intent
    4. d) CAPITAL: Accumulation->Transfers->Destruction
    5. e) FREQUENCY: One-Time->Repetitive->Pervasive

    12) Graph Dimensions: Is it possible to graph these continuum in order to show their dependence upon one another (taking into consideration that more than three dimensions is difficult for humans to comprehend.) Answer: Yes. We can create six or eight before they become repetitive. [Graph any two axis, and then attempt to add third, then repeat permutations until all are covered.]   EVALUATION What do these graphs tell us about objective evil? And about evil by analogy?

    1. a) To the actor(s), knowledge is the only relevant criteria for determining whether he is objectively evil or not.
    2. b) To the victim, capital is only relevant if a transfer or destruction of capital is created. Meaning that there is a standard that must be met in order to qualify as ‘evil’.
    3. c) To the victim, the actor’s knowledge is only relevant if frequency is repetitive and the actor is a group or individual.

      Therefore, the necessary and sufficient definition of the term ‘Evil’ consists of repetitive transfer or destruction of capital.   (NOTE: This definition applies to the divinity argument as well, since by definition, the divine is all powerful and eternal and therefore repetitive.)   PROPOSITION: P.1) ‘Evil’ is an archaic term that refers to the repetitive and therefore willful or systemic destruction of capital – individual or social, by individuals, groups, or ‘nature’. Conversely, ‘Good’ is an archaic term that refers to the repetitive and therefore willful or systemic accumulation of capital – individual or social, by individuals groups or ‘nature’. P.2) ‘Immoral’ is a term that refers to anonymous involuntary transfers of capital because of informational asymmetry. Conversely, ‘Moral’ is a term that refers to refraining from conducting anonymous involuntary transfers of capital due to informational asymmetry. P.3) ‘Unethical’ is a term that refers to non-anonymous involuntary transfers of capital because of informational asymmetry. Conversely, ‘Ethical’ is a term that refers to refraining from non-anonymous involuntary transfers of capital because of informational asymmetry. P.4) ‘Ill-mannered’ is a term that refers to the non-anonymous failure to contribute to normative capital – privatization (theft) of social capital stored in norms. Conversely, ‘well-mannered’ is a term that refers to the non-anonymous contribution to normative capital by habitual demonstration of adherence to norms.   WHERE:

    1. a) ‘Capital’ consists of life, body, several property, communal (shareholder) property, informal institutions (morals, ethics, manners, myths), formal institutions (laws, government).
    2. b) ‘Transfers’ consists of the movement capital from one set of one or more people to another set of one or more people.
    3. c) The normative composition of capital, property, and institutions varies from social group to social group.
    4. d) The primary purpose of ‘manners’ is ‘Signaling’. (i.e.: class status and demonstrated fitness to the group for the purpose of mate selection and association, and pedagogy through imitation.)

    NOTE: I am unsure whether ‘capital’ in these contexts also includes opportunities. I think that ‘opportunities’ may be forced expressly outside of all ethical systems that allow for competition (research and development). Any ethical system that did not allow for competition would not survive contact with those that do. In this sense, it is possible to have ‘bad’ ethical systems and ‘good’ ethical systems depending upon one’s time preference.

    ASSERTION: 1) I believe it will not be possible to define Good and Evil, Moral, and Immoral, Ethical, and Unethical, or well-mannered, and Ill-mannered, by any other form of demarcation that would not be answered by this set of propositions.   CONCLUSION: ‘Evil’ is an archaic term that is heavily loaded with mystical connotations– primarily because it has been politically loaded by the consumer class’ public intellectuals in their desire to undermine the social and political status of the church so that they could obtaining status through control of the public dialog. (Which in itself is an economic and political process.) Evil exists as an objective political and economic classification of human actions and effects. Groups can be classified as evil, and individuals can be classified as evil, if they take actions that produce outcomes that systemically or repeatedly transfer or destroy capital. Abstract entities (nature, god) an be classified as evil by analogy because they destroy capital. Ideas can be classified as evil, and abstract processes can be classified by analogy as evil if they produce outcomes that systematically or repeatedly transfer or destroy capital. i.e. Marxism is evil. It may be the ultimate evil that man has yet discovered, since it destroys the institutions that make cooperation in a division of labor possible. Its arguable either way whether, as Nietzsche stated, that the most evil person in history is Zoroaster. And from both an eastern and western perspective, if not Zoroaster, then at least Abraham is a candidate for the most evil person in history. But the monotheistic religions pale compared to the deadliness of Marxism.  

    PROSECUTION VS JUSTIFICATION

    The end of victorian presumption in argument (how to prosecute, assuming avoidance of reciprocity, assuming theft, survival from falsification, survival from externalities….)

  • Sorry Hans Hoppe, but you started from a false premise. Sovereignty and Reciproc

    Sorry Hans Hoppe, but you started from a false premise. Sovereignty and Reciprocity over all demonstrated interests are the only reason not to kill, enslave, enserf, plunder, or otherwise profit from by predation or parasitism. Justificationism is always false – see Abrahamism.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-16 00:19:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1195496543048151040

  • YOU ARE ‘UNFIT’ – When you seek anything other than sovereignty, the natural law

    YOU ARE ‘UNFIT’ – When you seek anything other than sovereignty, the natural law of reciprocity, markets in everything, you are UNFIT to cohabitate with Europeans, UNFIT to govern with europeans, and UNFIT to govern Europeans. Your UNFITNESS may be genetic or cultural or both.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-15 23:26:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1195483294747549696

  • “THE UNFIT” When you seek anything other than sovereignty, the natural law of re

    “THE UNFIT”

    When you seek anything other than sovereignty, the natural law of reciprocity, markets in everything, you are UNFIT to cohabitate with Europeans, UNFIT to govern with europeans, and UNFIT to govern Europeans. Your UNFITNESS may be genetic or cultural or both.

    The UNFIT may not rule the fit. The unfit may separate. The fit may conquer, rule, and domesticate into fitness. But it is a crime against our people, and a crime against mankind to pollute the fit with the unfit: whether genetic, cultural, or religious.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-15 20:03:00 UTC

  • The Law – Front Matter

    (Cover)

    .

    .

    .

    The Natural Law

    B. E . Curt Doolittle

    .

    .

    .

    (half-title)

    .

    .

    .

    .

    The Natural Law

    .

    .

    .

    .

    ( quotes page )“The Genius of Curt Doolittle”“Doolittle has managed to combine, in an unusual way, the following intellectual traditions: 1)Nietzsche: Aristocratic Aryanism vs Abrahamism. 2) Darwin: theory of evolution, new cognitive science and group evolutionary strategy. 3) Jefferson/Adams: legal theory, statecraft, political liberty. 4) Austrian School of economics: marginalism, Menger, Hayek. 5) Epistemology and philosophy of science: his Testimonialism represents a real innovation. 6) Classicism: Homer, Aristotle, Stoicism / Epicureanism, etc. – Reconstructing civic life and the curriculum which existed in our Universities until very recently (around 1968). Brilliant thinkers specialize usually in one or two schools of thought, not six. Besides, his level of competence in these scientific fields is state of the art. Propertarianism completes science and reforms philosophy, psychology, sociology, law, politics and international relations.”

    (title page)

    .

    .

    .

    The Natural Law The Law of Nature

    .

    .

    .

    .

    (copyright page) Copyright © 2019 by _____ All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the publisher, addressed “Attention: Permissions Coordinator,” at the address below. Imaginary Press 1233 Pennsylvania Avenue San Francisco, CA 94909 www.imaginarypress.com Ordering Information: Quantity sales. Special discounts are available on quantity purchases by corporations, associations, and others. For details, contact the publisher at the address above. Orders by U.S. trade bookstores and wholesalers. Please contact Big Distribution: Tel: (800) 800-8000; Fax: (800) 800-8001 or visit www.bigbooks.com. Printed in the United States of America Publisher’s Cataloging-in-Publication data Burton E Curt Doolittle An Indictment: A Prelude To Declaration of War p. cm. ISBN 978-0-9000000-0-0 1. The main category of the book —History —Other category. 2. Another subject category —From one perspective. 3. More categories —And their modifiers. I. Johnson, Ben. II. Title. HF0000.A0 A00 2010 299.000 00–dc22 2010999999 First Edition 14 13 12 11 10 / 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    (dedication)

    Dedication

    “For the ashes of our fathers, and the temples of our gods.”“For those who would rule themselves in self-interest, rule others out of self-defense, rule our people in their defense, rule mankind its defense, and by doing so, transcend man from beasts to humans, to the gods we imagine.” At the age of twelve, in our small idyllic victorian town, on a Sunday, sitting in a pew in our Roman Catholic church, inspired, I gave an oath to my god: that should I become wealthy, I would build him a church. That oath gave me purpose. And I have sought to fulfill that oath for the entirety of my life. But, I had no idea that while I meant wealth in the form of money and a church in the form of a building, that he meant wealth in the form of knowledge and a church in the form of a revolution, reformation, renaissance for our people, and for mankind. And once I understood, I felt the task impossible and myself inadequate  – but through faith, persistence, sacrifices few can bear, and hard work, I may have at least laid a cornerstone, and perhaps a foundation.

    (toc)

    Table of Contents

    Introduction Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8

    (preface)

    Preface

    The Cost of Heroism

    “Europeans do not know how to live unless they are engaged in some great enterprise. When this is lacking, they grow petty and feeble and their souls disintegrate.” (Ortega y Gasset)

    Origins

    In 1992, around the time of the Gulf War, the American Democratic Party launched its campaign to get air time for no other purpose than to repeat talking points and avoid answering questions. At the same time the conservative and libertarians were still unable to argue their positions in other than moral, historical, or religious language. There hadn’t been a scientific and rational counter-revolution in Conservative political speech to match the pseudoscientific Marxist and pseudo-rational Postmodern left’s counter-revolution against science, nor the level of sophistication in the production of ideology. The left succeeded in postwar construction of yet another foundational mythos in a repetition of the revolt against reason and law by the foundational myths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The combination of demand for, and financial incentive to, expand education of the newly affluent working and lower-middle classes, and the new foundational myths that promised a more prosperous future as well as political power, and the quite deliberate purge of western aristocratic, meritocratic, empirical, rule of law tradition, from the academy, actively suppressed the western aristocratic tradition. The preservation of the eugenics of Darwin, Spencer, and Nietzsche had failed, the preservation of eugenic meritocracy had failed, and the preservation of the relationship between economics and rule of law had failed. All failed to survive the European civil wars. In the postwar period, the conservative moralism of Kirk had failed, the classical liberal appeal to rule of law by Hayek had failed. Even the classical economists who were incognizant of the difference between their classical retention of rule of law and the left’s Keynesian abandonment of rule of law in favor of rule by economic discretion – they either underestimated or were incognizant of the fact that rule of law and classical economics continued the western eugenic tradition. Sometime in the late seventies those of us in conservative and libertarian circles merely assumed that just as Johnson’s Great Society experiment had clearly failed, that the same collapse would occur in the rest of the world (it did), and that we merely must wait out the bankruptcy here in America, and then the left would ‘see the light’. For this reason the use of debt to produce the military leap that would break the Russian economy’s ability to compete, was preferable and repairable, while the consequences of expanding the left’s increase in consumption would leaves genetic, normative, traditional, and institutional scars on our civilization. It may not be obvious that the years I spent working on artificial intelligence with the same degree of investment prepared me for and influenced me in this work. But the astute reader will see the evidence, and the obvious potential to apply the ideas to the field of artificial intelligence – in the development of a ‘conscience’.

    In Every Age (information, Operations)

    (Spirits, Forms, First Movers) (examples of Wittgenstein and his moving pictures) (logic and ideal and science to operationalism, transactions, economic demand, competition, and survival – this unites the olde world, reason, logic, justification and science, with the lessons of the 20th century: economics, computer science, linguistics, cognitive science)

    The Cause

    In every great transformational era cast off the superstitions, errors, justifications, and lies of the prior; and in doing so cause those who either benefitted from the prior era, or find opportunity in the newer, to produce waves of retaliation using new superstitions, errors, justifications and lies. So each great era consists of a cycle in which old impedimental rents are destroyed, new transformative opportunities are created, organizations and leaders rotate, consumption and population expands, and the gradual accumulation of calcifying rents proceeds yet again. That is, until a shock by technological innovation, natural disaster, plague, over consumption, overpopulation, over extension, trade route disruption, war via immigration, war by religious conversion, warfare of conflict or conquest, creates a demand to change and adapt the entire order. If there is either no institutional technology available to assist in the adaptation, or there is insufficient free capital to reorganize leaders, institutions, production, population and skills to produce an alternative order, then, as a consequence, the markets we call cities, are occupied, and the populations replaced, or the system of cooperation collapses, disappears, and is hidden by the accumulation of deposits over time. Transformational eras are made possible by … the invention of new Meaningful, descriptive, rational, measurable, commensurable, combinatorial, or transformational technology. Record by names and descriptions, then by stories, then by writing, … We compare by ideal types…. Supply demand curves, and equilibria We measure by counting, then arithmetic, then by accounting, then by geometry, then by calculus, then by statistics, then by non-Euclidean geometries of consistent but infinitely complex constant relations no longer physically possible, but only logically possible. We reason by examples within our experience, then by analogy to myth and legend; then by analogy to religious parable, dictate, and dogma; then by justification of morals, norms and law; then by correlation with evidence and recorded measurement; and now by demonstration of existentially possible construction using recipes, formulae, algorithms, programs, models, and simulations. We trade by luxuries, crafts, commodities, fractional interests, information, and time. We create weights and measures ….. We render the inconstant commensurable by money and prices,…. Property… We create various monetary instruments …. We rule by violence, then by religion and ostracization, then by law and punishment, then by credit and consumption, and now by digital reputation and access to opportunity. We organize by kin, then by cult, then by law, then by administrative division, then by economic model, and finally by civilization. We practice imitation ethics, heroic ethics, virtue ethics, rule ethics, and outcome ethics. Incremental Expansion of Productivity in the Division of Knowledge…. Incremental Expansion of that which has value spirits, farming, metals, hydraulics, gears, steam, electricity, and now something new. (myth, reason, theology, rationalism, empiricism, and now somethi Incremental Suppression of Parasitism Suppress crime by…. (undone….. solution? The ‘therefore’?) OUR NEXT GREAT ENDEAVOUR The Transcendence of Man ( … )

    WHAT IS THE PROMISE?

    The Fifth Enlightenment The impact of Propertarianism’s Algorithmic Natural Law of Reciprocity and Testimonialism’s Warranty of Due Diligence of Truthfulness will be as great an improvement in mankind’s agency as was (1) Meritocratic Aristocracy, (2) Aristotelian Reason, (3) Enlightenment Empiricism, and the (4) scientific and industrial revolution – and the consequences for mankind profound, enriching, empowering and most of all, transcendent. ( … )

    A CHALLENGE

    The only test of your ideas is law If you can’t write a body of policy changes, a project plan, contracts, shareholder agreements, a body of law, and a constitution to make a society function you’re just talking smack – because that is the hierarchy of algorithms that produce not a simulation but the operating system of the real world that we live in. You must program a computer via positiva, because it cannot imagine, or predict, and so cannot choose without those instructions. But you must program humanity via negativa because it can imagine, predict, and choose – which is why humans can adapt and computers can’t. And while both a computer and a human are amoral, the computer cannot choose between morality and immorality. The human can. and the purpose of our manners, ethics morals, norms, traditions, institutions and laws is to rase the cost of the immoral choices so that only moral choices remain. But we all test that limit at every opportunity. In anticipation of critics It’s in the nature of those defending investments in errors, priors, wishful-thinking, frauds, deceits, and lies to seek minor imperfections in the weave of an argumentative greatcoat under the pretense that an inopportune pull will leave the wearer shivering in the winter cold. But, in our defense, we can deflate any compliment or criticism into incentives, actions, volition, transfers, changes in capital, and method of communication and argument, and determine whether one acts and speaks truthfully and reciprocally under warranty (meaning morally), or dishonestly and fraudulently without warranty (meaning immorally). The era of psychologism, ridicule, rallying and shaming is over.

    • Faith: a Priest Commands Obedience To a fraud – to produce a supposed Good.
    • Theory: a Merchant Begs permission to Exchange – to obtain a mutual Preference.
    • Truth: a Sovereign Challenges you to Defeat Him – because it is the only way to know the Truth Of his abilities.

    So this is my challenge: It will be very hard to undo what i have done here.

    (introduction)

    Introduction

    —“we are living in an era when sanity is controversial and insanity is just another viewpoint—and degeneracy only another lifestyle.”–thomas sowell

    What is this book about?

    ( … )

    What’s the Objective?

    ( .. )

    . . .

    Is this philosophy, law or science?

    Testimony: actions, truth, decidability vs philosophy, words (text), choiceWE are what we do. i am, as are all of us, what i do. and in the past, what i do was called a philosophy – at least when referring to aristotle. We have no word today for what i do. neither philosophy, nor the law, nor science is sufficient. Instead, my work unifies science, law, and philosophy, combining them into what i call testimony or Testimonial truth. I am writing to, and speaking to you in Testimony, using the vocabulary and grammar of natural law. natural law is the equivalent of the physical laws of physics, chemistry, and biology,  but for the human sciences of language, psychology, sociology, ethics, economics, politics, and law. Please don’t blame me for the obvious confusion between Physical laws of nature, and the Natural law of man. our ancestors left us with these terms. I inherited them just as you did. Writing in Testimony Will sound much more like i’m a prosecutor than a philosopher or scientist. That’s because philosophers advise, scientists describe, and the law decides. So the law doesn’t – and i don’t, prevaricate with comforting or polite words open to interpretation. The law does, and i do, prosecute claims, and judge the evidence. And we aren’t addressing a subject for cheerful or comforting discourse. Decidability: science, natural law, testimony Choice: Philosophy Advice: wisdom literature: mythology, hinduism Advocacy: secular theology: continental philosophy, Training (therapy): Buddhism, stoicism Requirement: theology: abrahamic, buddhist, Testimony, natural law, physical law, measurement, logical facility, memory Logical facility, mathematics, physical science, natural law,  economics, Testimony, ordinary language, description, narration, Storytelling, history, fiction, literature, myth. Fictionalism (sophisms) … idealism > platonism > surrealism … magic > pseudoscience … occult > supernatural (theological) And last of all, Deceit

    . . .

    Audience

    Who is the audience?

    • The Curious Who would like to learn something new – even if it’s only to learn that such a thing as propertarianism exists.
    • Activists Seeking political change regardless of political and moral bias.
    • Revolutionaries The world over who seek a shovel-ready solution to political orders in modernity
    • Politicians Looking for solutions to the transformation of the post-communist-capitalist world.
    • Philosophers Who would prefer to speak in a scientific rather than literary prose – and prevent themselves from obsolescence.
    • Jurists Who seek a basis for their intuitions that it is possible to create a formal and algorithmic body of law.
    • Artificial intelligence Researchers and developers who desire to solve the problem of rational, ethical, and moral general artificial intelligences.
    • Software developers Working in various monetary substitutes who are seeking a language that more readily explains their ambitions.

    What you will like

    ( … )

    What you will not like

    ( … ) When justice delivers her verdict, without exception, it provides all parties internal to the conflict with equal dissatisfaction. And i suspect that will be the reader’s experience.

    Why the terms, lists, diagrams?

    You will notice right away, that in testimony, we use a lot of lists of various kinds. That’s for a number of reasons: Creating measurements from words, simplifying complexity, helping you jog your memory When you need to, and helping you Scan for ideas When you need to jog your memory. 1. turning ordinary language into a system of measurement For example, in mathematics, we take a series of words, put them in order – meaning in a position – on in a line, and call that a Number line. and when we do that, we can use the number line as a system of measurement. And it’s very hard to confuse by accident or pretend so that we deceive ourselves of others, that two positions on that line are the same. So in testimony do the same thing. We take an idea. We collect a number of words that are synonyms and antonyms for that idea, then put them in some kind of order on a line, then define each on differently from the others, and we have created a system of measurement that’s very precise. And so it is very hard to confuse (or conflate) by accident or to confuse (or conflate) for the purpose of deception of ourselves or of others So let’s use ‘Moral‘ because that’s a word that we all use but conflate (confuse) often. 

    Good, moral, ethical, right amoral, wrong, unethical, immoral, evil

    Which we usually write with arrows so that we can help the reader understand the direction of the idea, and we put bars around the starting point. 

    Good < moral < ethical < right < |amoral| > wrong > unethical > immoral, > evil

    And then define them as actions: Good: when you do something that benefits others, at neutral or some cost to you. Moral: when you do something where you could cheat others indirectly and anonymously but you don’t. Ethical: when you do something where you could cheat the other person directly but you don’t. Right: when you do something that could affect others but you ensure it doesn’t. Amoral: when you do something that doesn’t affect others because it can’t. Wrong: when you do something that affects others but don’t you ensure and it does. Unethical: when you do something where you can cheat the other person directly and you do. Immoral: when you do something where you could cheat others indirectly and anonymously and you don’t. Evil: when you do something that harms others, just to harm them even if it costs you. Where the “Constant-relation” between the terms is the spectrum of means of imposing – or avoiding imposing – the consequences of your actions upon others. So now we have a unit of measurement of the morality of human actions. So whether we want to speak truthfully, or determine whether someone else is speaking truthfully, we have a simple means of testing their speech. When we use these terms we won’t confuse them, and everyone else writing in testimony can use them the same way.  And, you might think that this would be a lot of work and be confusing, but it turns out that there aren’t very many of them, after a while, you’ll memorize all of them, and this is one of the most common series we use. We call this technique “Disambiguation, serialization, and operationalization” because we de-conflate terms, by writing them in operational language, meaning definitions that start with ‘when you do something that causes something that you experience as.’ and then we sort them by trial and error into order, and adjust their definitions until they don’t overlap (conflate), so that they are disambiguated. Writing in actions – operational language – causes us to write from the same point of view, so that no matter what we are discussing, no matter what subject we discuss by reducing all of our terms to actions in operational language, they will all be measurable by the same standard: actions. This technique creates “Commensurability” Regardless of the subject matter. Not so that we must speak in that system of measurement – it would be burdensome, but so like mathematics in the determinism (constant relations) of the physical science, we would have a language of measurement for all sciences, including the human sciences. Testimonial prose allows us to determine whether a person who is claiming something is Reciprocal (truthful and right, ethical, moral, or good) can make the claim by demonstrating sufficient knowledge to make the claim, and has made the claim. And that is the purpose of testimony: to create a System of measurement: A value neutral Language For the discussion of reality (what we call metaphysics), physical sciences and the human sciences of psychology, sociology, economics, ethics, law politics, and group strategy. A value-neutral language for use as a fully commensurable, system of measurement, for the non-physical sciences. 2. charts simplify complexity (…) 3. jogging your memory ( … ) 4. ease of finding by scanning  ( … ) Most of the time, whenever necessary or possible we’ve included a chart and an explanation, and a selection of readings that apply it. Definitions > charts > explanations > readings (essays) So whatever your reading style, you should find a comfortable way of understanding the topic, and then you can return for more information later if you want to, or find a need to.

    Vocabulary

    All disciplines require specific terminology, and propertarianism, which is a formal construction of the natural law of reciprocity, like existing law as practiced in both common and continental varieties, must produce statements that are both decidable, and not open to manipulation or interpretation, which in turn requires a very precise vocabulary. We use a sometimes painfully rigorous vocabulary. And to begin with, english is already notable for its preference to appropriate as many terms as possible from as many languages as possible, rather than, as under its german origins, compounding terms. To some degree, we take this property of english to its natural conclusion. Resulting in: 

    |Definitions| operational > narrower > corrected > redefined > 
   Neologisms

    Operational definitions: to reduce conflation and increase deflation – to remove tendency to misinterpret the term. Narrower definitions: once we organize related terms in a series, we will narrow the definition of those terms. Corrected definitions: many terms – particularly those with platonic or ideal (rather than operational or empirical) definitions must be corrected. An extreme example being that a “number” consists of a positional name, and that is all. Redefinition: (reframing) in some cases terms are defined a framing that is either false, pseudoscientific, archaic, or deceptive. So i’ve redefined them with operational framing. For example the choice of capitalism versus socialism is a choice between rule of law independent of discretion, and arbitrary rule consisting of discretion. Framing the choice as economic ideals obscures the operational differences.  New terms (neologisms) : some new terms where older terms would be conflationary or confus­ing. Many “-isms”: Definition: -ism: “a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy (method of decision making), that provides categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability in a domain.” to understand the meaning of “-isms”: requires one know the categories, values, method of epistemology, and means of decidability that they refer to. so -ism’s are identical to any other taxonomic categorization in any other specific domain, such as that of family, kingdom, genus, and species. In many cases we will define the term in the glossary. If not then wikipedia often provides a simple version and the stanford encyclopedia provides a thorough if often more confusing version.

    Style guide

    Bold To allow for those of us who read quickly to scan by Keywords. Capitals For names of ideas, like “rationalism”, “sovereignty”, “propertarianism”. Parentheticals To bridge operational(technical) and meaningful(familiar) terms, or to limit interpretation. Series and lists : a sequence of definitions representing a spectrum of terms. The use of series deflates, increases precision, and defeats conflation. First exposure to the methodology’s use and repetition of series tends to both be the most obvious and most helpful of the techniques. Constructions : tracing the path of the development of ideas from primitive to current constructions. Algorithms : general processes for the construction of deflations. Wordy prose.

    • Analytic philosophy is, of necessity, wordy.
    • Operational language is, of necessity, wordy.
    • Programming algorithms is, of necessity, wordy.
    • Law, whether contractual, legislative, or constitutional, is wordy.
    • Algorithmic natural law is of necessity, wordy.

    Technical languages evolve to speak precisely. Precise language contains technical terms and is wordy. Why, if all the other sciences require technical language, would we think that speaking technically in the science of cooperation is not going to be wordy? Well, it’s going to be wordy.

    The methodology

    “i categorize p as describing the intellectual foundations of western civlization that the populists are currently demanding,  but don’t know how to express in rational and scientific terms.”

    What we call or “the propertarian project”, “Propertarianism” (a system of measurement), “sovereigntarianism” (the first cause) or ‘natural law of reciprocity”(the method), or “the natural law of the european peoples”, or any other of the names we use within it, is as large a reformation as were the aristotelian (reason), augustinian(compromise); british empirical (first scientific); and the darwinian era’s (second scientific) revolutions – and we should consider propertarianism’s position in intellectual history as the completion of the darwinian scientific revolution of the 19th and 20th centuries, and the completion of the aristotelian research program, fully disambiguating fictions (visions), theology (wishes); philosophy(choice), law (cooperation) and science(decidability), and completing the scientific method. This completed scientific method also allows us to differentiate between reciprocal and truthful and irreciprocal and un-truthful speech. It’s a large project that reforms and modernizes every discipline. But, you don’t need to understand the entirety of this project to understand this Constitution. You need only understand that there is far more behind its construction that might be obvious, and whenever you find something counter-intuitive, it’s because of that underlying reformation.

  • The Law – Front Matter

    (Cover)

    .

    .

    .

    The Natural Law

    B. E . Curt Doolittle

    .

    .

    .

    (half-title)

    .

    .

    .

    .

    The Natural Law

    .

    .

    .

    .

    ( quotes page )“The Genius of Curt Doolittle”“Doolittle has managed to combine, in an unusual way, the following intellectual traditions: 1)Nietzsche: Aristocratic Aryanism vs Abrahamism. 2) Darwin: theory of evolution, new cognitive science and group evolutionary strategy. 3) Jefferson/Adams: legal theory, statecraft, political liberty. 4) Austrian School of economics: marginalism, Menger, Hayek. 5) Epistemology and philosophy of science: his Testimonialism represents a real innovation. 6) Classicism: Homer, Aristotle, Stoicism / Epicureanism, etc. – Reconstructing civic life and the curriculum which existed in our Universities until very recently (around 1968). Brilliant thinkers specialize usually in one or two schools of thought, not six. Besides, his level of competence in these scientific fields is state of the art. Propertarianism completes science and reforms philosophy, psychology, sociology, law, politics and international relations.”

    (title page)

    .

    .

    .

    The Natural Law The Law of Nature

    .

    .

    .

    .

    (copyright page) Copyright © 2019 by _____ All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the publisher, addressed “Attention: Permissions Coordinator,” at the address below. Imaginary Press 1233 Pennsylvania Avenue San Francisco, CA 94909 www.imaginarypress.com Ordering Information: Quantity sales. Special discounts are available on quantity purchases by corporations, associations, and others. For details, contact the publisher at the address above. Orders by U.S. trade bookstores and wholesalers. Please contact Big Distribution: Tel: (800) 800-8000; Fax: (800) 800-8001 or visit www.bigbooks.com. Printed in the United States of America Publisher’s Cataloging-in-Publication data Burton E Curt Doolittle An Indictment: A Prelude To Declaration of War p. cm. ISBN 978-0-9000000-0-0 1. The main category of the book —History —Other category. 2. Another subject category —From one perspective. 3. More categories —And their modifiers. I. Johnson, Ben. II. Title. HF0000.A0 A00 2010 299.000 00–dc22 2010999999 First Edition 14 13 12 11 10 / 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    (dedication)

    Dedication

    “For the ashes of our fathers, and the temples of our gods.”“For those who would rule themselves in self-interest, rule others out of self-defense, rule our people in their defense, rule mankind its defense, and by doing so, transcend man from beasts to humans, to the gods we imagine.” At the age of twelve, in our small idyllic victorian town, on a Sunday, sitting in a pew in our Roman Catholic church, inspired, I gave an oath to my god: that should I become wealthy, I would build him a church. That oath gave me purpose. And I have sought to fulfill that oath for the entirety of my life. But, I had no idea that while I meant wealth in the form of money and a church in the form of a building, that he meant wealth in the form of knowledge and a church in the form of a revolution, reformation, renaissance for our people, and for mankind. And once I understood, I felt the task impossible and myself inadequate  – but through faith, persistence, sacrifices few can bear, and hard work, I may have at least laid a cornerstone, and perhaps a foundation.

    (toc)

    Table of Contents

    Introduction Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8

    (preface)

    Preface

    The Cost of Heroism

    “Europeans do not know how to live unless they are engaged in some great enterprise. When this is lacking, they grow petty and feeble and their souls disintegrate.” (Ortega y Gasset)

    Origins

    In 1992, around the time of the Gulf War, the American Democratic Party launched its campaign to get air time for no other purpose than to repeat talking points and avoid answering questions. At the same time the conservative and libertarians were still unable to argue their positions in other than moral, historical, or religious language. There hadn’t been a scientific and rational counter-revolution in Conservative political speech to match the pseudoscientific Marxist and pseudo-rational Postmodern left’s counter-revolution against science, nor the level of sophistication in the production of ideology. The left succeeded in postwar construction of yet another foundational mythos in a repetition of the revolt against reason and law by the foundational myths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The combination of demand for, and financial incentive to, expand education of the newly affluent working and lower-middle classes, and the new foundational myths that promised a more prosperous future as well as political power, and the quite deliberate purge of western aristocratic, meritocratic, empirical, rule of law tradition, from the academy, actively suppressed the western aristocratic tradition. The preservation of the eugenics of Darwin, Spencer, and Nietzsche had failed, the preservation of eugenic meritocracy had failed, and the preservation of the relationship between economics and rule of law had failed. All failed to survive the European civil wars. In the postwar period, the conservative moralism of Kirk had failed, the classical liberal appeal to rule of law by Hayek had failed. Even the classical economists who were incognizant of the difference between their classical retention of rule of law and the left’s Keynesian abandonment of rule of law in favor of rule by economic discretion – they either underestimated or were incognizant of the fact that rule of law and classical economics continued the western eugenic tradition. Sometime in the late seventies those of us in conservative and libertarian circles merely assumed that just as Johnson’s Great Society experiment had clearly failed, that the same collapse would occur in the rest of the world (it did), and that we merely must wait out the bankruptcy here in America, and then the left would ‘see the light’. For this reason the use of debt to produce the military leap that would break the Russian economy’s ability to compete, was preferable and repairable, while the consequences of expanding the left’s increase in consumption would leaves genetic, normative, traditional, and institutional scars on our civilization. It may not be obvious that the years I spent working on artificial intelligence with the same degree of investment prepared me for and influenced me in this work. But the astute reader will see the evidence, and the obvious potential to apply the ideas to the field of artificial intelligence – in the development of a ‘conscience’.

    In Every Age (information, Operations)

    (Spirits, Forms, First Movers) (examples of Wittgenstein and his moving pictures) (logic and ideal and science to operationalism, transactions, economic demand, competition, and survival – this unites the olde world, reason, logic, justification and science, with the lessons of the 20th century: economics, computer science, linguistics, cognitive science)

    The Cause

    In every great transformational era cast off the superstitions, errors, justifications, and lies of the prior; and in doing so cause those who either benefitted from the prior era, or find opportunity in the newer, to produce waves of retaliation using new superstitions, errors, justifications and lies. So each great era consists of a cycle in which old impedimental rents are destroyed, new transformative opportunities are created, organizations and leaders rotate, consumption and population expands, and the gradual accumulation of calcifying rents proceeds yet again. That is, until a shock by technological innovation, natural disaster, plague, over consumption, overpopulation, over extension, trade route disruption, war via immigration, war by religious conversion, warfare of conflict or conquest, creates a demand to change and adapt the entire order. If there is either no institutional technology available to assist in the adaptation, or there is insufficient free capital to reorganize leaders, institutions, production, population and skills to produce an alternative order, then, as a consequence, the markets we call cities, are occupied, and the populations replaced, or the system of cooperation collapses, disappears, and is hidden by the accumulation of deposits over time. Transformational eras are made possible by … the invention of new Meaningful, descriptive, rational, measurable, commensurable, combinatorial, or transformational technology. Record by names and descriptions, then by stories, then by writing, … We compare by ideal types…. Supply demand curves, and equilibria We measure by counting, then arithmetic, then by accounting, then by geometry, then by calculus, then by statistics, then by non-Euclidean geometries of consistent but infinitely complex constant relations no longer physically possible, but only logically possible. We reason by examples within our experience, then by analogy to myth and legend; then by analogy to religious parable, dictate, and dogma; then by justification of morals, norms and law; then by correlation with evidence and recorded measurement; and now by demonstration of existentially possible construction using recipes, formulae, algorithms, programs, models, and simulations. We trade by luxuries, crafts, commodities, fractional interests, information, and time. We create weights and measures ….. We render the inconstant commensurable by money and prices,…. Property… We create various monetary instruments …. We rule by violence, then by religion and ostracization, then by law and punishment, then by credit and consumption, and now by digital reputation and access to opportunity. We organize by kin, then by cult, then by law, then by administrative division, then by economic model, and finally by civilization. We practice imitation ethics, heroic ethics, virtue ethics, rule ethics, and outcome ethics. Incremental Expansion of Productivity in the Division of Knowledge…. Incremental Expansion of that which has value spirits, farming, metals, hydraulics, gears, steam, electricity, and now something new. (myth, reason, theology, rationalism, empiricism, and now somethi Incremental Suppression of Parasitism Suppress crime by…. (undone….. solution? The ‘therefore’?) OUR NEXT GREAT ENDEAVOUR The Transcendence of Man ( … )

    WHAT IS THE PROMISE?

    The Fifth Enlightenment The impact of Propertarianism’s Algorithmic Natural Law of Reciprocity and Testimonialism’s Warranty of Due Diligence of Truthfulness will be as great an improvement in mankind’s agency as was (1) Meritocratic Aristocracy, (2) Aristotelian Reason, (3) Enlightenment Empiricism, and the (4) scientific and industrial revolution – and the consequences for mankind profound, enriching, empowering and most of all, transcendent. ( … )

    A CHALLENGE

    The only test of your ideas is law If you can’t write a body of policy changes, a project plan, contracts, shareholder agreements, a body of law, and a constitution to make a society function you’re just talking smack – because that is the hierarchy of algorithms that produce not a simulation but the operating system of the real world that we live in. You must program a computer via positiva, because it cannot imagine, or predict, and so cannot choose without those instructions. But you must program humanity via negativa because it can imagine, predict, and choose – which is why humans can adapt and computers can’t. And while both a computer and a human are amoral, the computer cannot choose between morality and immorality. The human can. and the purpose of our manners, ethics morals, norms, traditions, institutions and laws is to rase the cost of the immoral choices so that only moral choices remain. But we all test that limit at every opportunity. In anticipation of critics It’s in the nature of those defending investments in errors, priors, wishful-thinking, frauds, deceits, and lies to seek minor imperfections in the weave of an argumentative greatcoat under the pretense that an inopportune pull will leave the wearer shivering in the winter cold. But, in our defense, we can deflate any compliment or criticism into incentives, actions, volition, transfers, changes in capital, and method of communication and argument, and determine whether one acts and speaks truthfully and reciprocally under warranty (meaning morally), or dishonestly and fraudulently without warranty (meaning immorally). The era of psychologism, ridicule, rallying and shaming is over.

    • Faith: a Priest Commands Obedience To a fraud – to produce a supposed Good.
    • Theory: a Merchant Begs permission to Exchange – to obtain a mutual Preference.
    • Truth: a Sovereign Challenges you to Defeat Him – because it is the only way to know the Truth Of his abilities.

    So this is my challenge: It will be very hard to undo what i have done here.

    (introduction)

    Introduction

    —“we are living in an era when sanity is controversial and insanity is just another viewpoint—and degeneracy only another lifestyle.”–thomas sowell

    What is this book about?

    ( … )

    What’s the Objective?

    ( .. )

    . . .

    Is this philosophy, law or science?

    Testimony: actions, truth, decidability vs philosophy, words (text), choiceWE are what we do. i am, as are all of us, what i do. and in the past, what i do was called a philosophy – at least when referring to aristotle. We have no word today for what i do. neither philosophy, nor the law, nor science is sufficient. Instead, my work unifies science, law, and philosophy, combining them into what i call testimony or Testimonial truth. I am writing to, and speaking to you in Testimony, using the vocabulary and grammar of natural law. natural law is the equivalent of the physical laws of physics, chemistry, and biology,  but for the human sciences of language, psychology, sociology, ethics, economics, politics, and law. Please don’t blame me for the obvious confusion between Physical laws of nature, and the Natural law of man. our ancestors left us with these terms. I inherited them just as you did. Writing in Testimony Will sound much more like i’m a prosecutor than a philosopher or scientist. That’s because philosophers advise, scientists describe, and the law decides. So the law doesn’t – and i don’t, prevaricate with comforting or polite words open to interpretation. The law does, and i do, prosecute claims, and judge the evidence. And we aren’t addressing a subject for cheerful or comforting discourse. Decidability: science, natural law, testimony Choice: Philosophy Advice: wisdom literature: mythology, hinduism Advocacy: secular theology: continental philosophy, Training (therapy): Buddhism, stoicism Requirement: theology: abrahamic, buddhist, Testimony, natural law, physical law, measurement, logical facility, memory Logical facility, mathematics, physical science, natural law,  economics, Testimony, ordinary language, description, narration, Storytelling, history, fiction, literature, myth. Fictionalism (sophisms) … idealism > platonism > surrealism … magic > pseudoscience … occult > supernatural (theological) And last of all, Deceit

    . . .

    Audience

    Who is the audience?

    • The Curious Who would like to learn something new – even if it’s only to learn that such a thing as propertarianism exists.
    • Activists Seeking political change regardless of political and moral bias.
    • Revolutionaries The world over who seek a shovel-ready solution to political orders in modernity
    • Politicians Looking for solutions to the transformation of the post-communist-capitalist world.
    • Philosophers Who would prefer to speak in a scientific rather than literary prose – and prevent themselves from obsolescence.
    • Jurists Who seek a basis for their intuitions that it is possible to create a formal and algorithmic body of law.
    • Artificial intelligence Researchers and developers who desire to solve the problem of rational, ethical, and moral general artificial intelligences.
    • Software developers Working in various monetary substitutes who are seeking a language that more readily explains their ambitions.

    What you will like

    ( … )

    What you will not like

    ( … ) When justice delivers her verdict, without exception, it provides all parties internal to the conflict with equal dissatisfaction. And i suspect that will be the reader’s experience.

    Why the terms, lists, diagrams?

    You will notice right away, that in testimony, we use a lot of lists of various kinds. That’s for a number of reasons: Creating measurements from words, simplifying complexity, helping you jog your memory When you need to, and helping you Scan for ideas When you need to jog your memory. 1. turning ordinary language into a system of measurement For example, in mathematics, we take a series of words, put them in order – meaning in a position – on in a line, and call that a Number line. and when we do that, we can use the number line as a system of measurement. And it’s very hard to confuse by accident or pretend so that we deceive ourselves of others, that two positions on that line are the same. So in testimony do the same thing. We take an idea. We collect a number of words that are synonyms and antonyms for that idea, then put them in some kind of order on a line, then define each on differently from the others, and we have created a system of measurement that’s very precise. And so it is very hard to confuse (or conflate) by accident or to confuse (or conflate) for the purpose of deception of ourselves or of others So let’s use ‘Moral‘ because that’s a word that we all use but conflate (confuse) often. 

    Good, moral, ethical, right amoral, wrong, unethical, immoral, evil

    Which we usually write with arrows so that we can help the reader understand the direction of the idea, and we put bars around the starting point. 

    Good < moral < ethical < right < |amoral| > wrong > unethical > immoral, > evil

    And then define them as actions: Good: when you do something that benefits others, at neutral or some cost to you. Moral: when you do something where you could cheat others indirectly and anonymously but you don’t. Ethical: when you do something where you could cheat the other person directly but you don’t. Right: when you do something that could affect others but you ensure it doesn’t. Amoral: when you do something that doesn’t affect others because it can’t. Wrong: when you do something that affects others but don’t you ensure and it does. Unethical: when you do something where you can cheat the other person directly and you do. Immoral: when you do something where you could cheat others indirectly and anonymously and you don’t. Evil: when you do something that harms others, just to harm them even if it costs you. Where the “Constant-relation” between the terms is the spectrum of means of imposing – or avoiding imposing – the consequences of your actions upon others. So now we have a unit of measurement of the morality of human actions. So whether we want to speak truthfully, or determine whether someone else is speaking truthfully, we have a simple means of testing their speech. When we use these terms we won’t confuse them, and everyone else writing in testimony can use them the same way.  And, you might think that this would be a lot of work and be confusing, but it turns out that there aren’t very many of them, after a while, you’ll memorize all of them, and this is one of the most common series we use. We call this technique “Disambiguation, serialization, and operationalization” because we de-conflate terms, by writing them in operational language, meaning definitions that start with ‘when you do something that causes something that you experience as.’ and then we sort them by trial and error into order, and adjust their definitions until they don’t overlap (conflate), so that they are disambiguated. Writing in actions – operational language – causes us to write from the same point of view, so that no matter what we are discussing, no matter what subject we discuss by reducing all of our terms to actions in operational language, they will all be measurable by the same standard: actions. This technique creates “Commensurability” Regardless of the subject matter. Not so that we must speak in that system of measurement – it would be burdensome, but so like mathematics in the determinism (constant relations) of the physical science, we would have a language of measurement for all sciences, including the human sciences. Testimonial prose allows us to determine whether a person who is claiming something is Reciprocal (truthful and right, ethical, moral, or good) can make the claim by demonstrating sufficient knowledge to make the claim, and has made the claim. And that is the purpose of testimony: to create a System of measurement: A value neutral Language For the discussion of reality (what we call metaphysics), physical sciences and the human sciences of psychology, sociology, economics, ethics, law politics, and group strategy. A value-neutral language for use as a fully commensurable, system of measurement, for the non-physical sciences. 2. charts simplify complexity (…) 3. jogging your memory ( … ) 4. ease of finding by scanning  ( … ) Most of the time, whenever necessary or possible we’ve included a chart and an explanation, and a selection of readings that apply it. Definitions > charts > explanations > readings (essays) So whatever your reading style, you should find a comfortable way of understanding the topic, and then you can return for more information later if you want to, or find a need to.

    Vocabulary

    All disciplines require specific terminology, and propertarianism, which is a formal construction of the natural law of reciprocity, like existing law as practiced in both common and continental varieties, must produce statements that are both decidable, and not open to manipulation or interpretation, which in turn requires a very precise vocabulary. We use a sometimes painfully rigorous vocabulary. And to begin with, english is already notable for its preference to appropriate as many terms as possible from as many languages as possible, rather than, as under its german origins, compounding terms. To some degree, we take this property of english to its natural conclusion. Resulting in: 

    |Definitions| operational > narrower > corrected > redefined > 
   Neologisms

    Operational definitions: to reduce conflation and increase deflation – to remove tendency to misinterpret the term. Narrower definitions: once we organize related terms in a series, we will narrow the definition of those terms. Corrected definitions: many terms – particularly those with platonic or ideal (rather than operational or empirical) definitions must be corrected. An extreme example being that a “number” consists of a positional name, and that is all. Redefinition: (reframing) in some cases terms are defined a framing that is either false, pseudoscientific, archaic, or deceptive. So i’ve redefined them with operational framing. For example the choice of capitalism versus socialism is a choice between rule of law independent of discretion, and arbitrary rule consisting of discretion. Framing the choice as economic ideals obscures the operational differences.  New terms (neologisms) : some new terms where older terms would be conflationary or confus­ing. Many “-isms”: Definition: -ism: “a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy (method of decision making), that provides categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability in a domain.” to understand the meaning of “-isms”: requires one know the categories, values, method of epistemology, and means of decidability that they refer to. so -ism’s are identical to any other taxonomic categorization in any other specific domain, such as that of family, kingdom, genus, and species. In many cases we will define the term in the glossary. If not then wikipedia often provides a simple version and the stanford encyclopedia provides a thorough if often more confusing version.

    Style guide

    Bold To allow for those of us who read quickly to scan by Keywords. Capitals For names of ideas, like “rationalism”, “sovereignty”, “propertarianism”. Parentheticals To bridge operational(technical) and meaningful(familiar) terms, or to limit interpretation. Series and lists : a sequence of definitions representing a spectrum of terms. The use of series deflates, increases precision, and defeats conflation. First exposure to the methodology’s use and repetition of series tends to both be the most obvious and most helpful of the techniques. Constructions : tracing the path of the development of ideas from primitive to current constructions. Algorithms : general processes for the construction of deflations. Wordy prose.

    • Analytic philosophy is, of necessity, wordy.
    • Operational language is, of necessity, wordy.
    • Programming algorithms is, of necessity, wordy.
    • Law, whether contractual, legislative, or constitutional, is wordy.
    • Algorithmic natural law is of necessity, wordy.

    Technical languages evolve to speak precisely. Precise language contains technical terms and is wordy. Why, if all the other sciences require technical language, would we think that speaking technically in the science of cooperation is not going to be wordy? Well, it’s going to be wordy.

    The methodology

    “i categorize p as describing the intellectual foundations of western civlization that the populists are currently demanding,  but don’t know how to express in rational and scientific terms.”

    What we call or “the propertarian project”, “Propertarianism” (a system of measurement), “sovereigntarianism” (the first cause) or ‘natural law of reciprocity”(the method), or “the natural law of the european peoples”, or any other of the names we use within it, is as large a reformation as were the aristotelian (reason), augustinian(compromise); british empirical (first scientific); and the darwinian era’s (second scientific) revolutions – and we should consider propertarianism’s position in intellectual history as the completion of the darwinian scientific revolution of the 19th and 20th centuries, and the completion of the aristotelian research program, fully disambiguating fictions (visions), theology (wishes); philosophy(choice), law (cooperation) and science(decidability), and completing the scientific method. This completed scientific method also allows us to differentiate between reciprocal and truthful and irreciprocal and un-truthful speech. It’s a large project that reforms and modernizes every discipline. But, you don’t need to understand the entirety of this project to understand this Constitution. You need only understand that there is far more behind its construction that might be obvious, and whenever you find something counter-intuitive, it’s because of that underlying reformation.

  • Prosecute those who lie. There is only one law, reciprocity, and testimony is it

    Prosecute those who lie. There is only one law, reciprocity, and testimony is it’s language.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-15 02:06:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1195161028448997376

    Reply addressees: @dglaffere

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1195160492773433344

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — 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/1195160492773433344