TERMS: FULL ACCOUNTING VS FULL VS PERFECT RECIPROCITY —“Describe what you mean by “FULL reciprocity” if you would.”— “Without having to make an excuse for an involuntary imposition of costs in either direction.” I sometimes use the term ‘perfect reciprocity‘ which is technically impossible, but is less confusing. The possible term is full accounting (what is possible), not ideal accounting(what is perfect).
Theme: Reciprocity
-
Synonyms: Altruism, Morality, Virtue
SYNONYMS Altruism(direct), Morality(indirect), Virtue(long term) a) find an example of altruism that is not an example of kin selection. (you won’t) b) find an example of morality that is not an example of investing in future reciprocity (you won’t) c) find an example of virtue that is not an example of bearing a cost (‘banking’). you won’t. It should be fairly obvious after making a few lists of a/b/c that this is the same question at three different scales.
-
Synonyms: Altruism, Morality, Virtue
SYNONYMS Altruism(direct), Morality(indirect), Virtue(long term) a) find an example of altruism that is not an example of kin selection. (you won’t) b) find an example of morality that is not an example of investing in future reciprocity (you won’t) c) find an example of virtue that is not an example of bearing a cost (‘banking’). you won’t. It should be fairly obvious after making a few lists of a/b/c that this is the same question at three different scales.
-
Property without Magical Thinking
“There is no evidence that objects transform into property, that they are somehow magically infused with an attribute known as ownership. Sure, humans transform inputs into outputs all the time, that’s what we do, and generally we treat things that we have transformed as property. But the truth is that transformed objects are still just objects, and that what makes them property is the fact that we agree to behave in a certain way with them, not that there is an inherent ‘property-ness’ to them. This is why a transformed object (house) may be ‘non-property’ (unowned). The act of transformation does not ‘create’ property, it merely signals that we should behave in a certain way towards it. The Labor Theory of Property is clear, that man ‘mixes his labor with nature’, that somehow an object is infused with something. This is magical thinking. Now, I keep running into people who want to pretend that the words ‘mixing labor with nature’ don’t mean what they say, that this is some metaphor that I’m misunderstanding. This is also part of the Propertarian philosophy: we can’t behave rationally if words don’t mean what they mean. We can’t behave rationally if our fundamental building blocks are metaphors. We require concrete, clear, unmistakable language with which to clearly describe the universe. Nothing less will do, if we are to create systems which are empirical rather than merely rational.” William Butchman
-
Natural Law, Sovereignty, and the Restoration
Mar 02, 2017 9:42am NATURAL LAW, SOVEREIGNTY, AND THE RESTORATION NATURAL LAW Testimonialism: Epistemology and Truth (Testimony), and Propertarianism: Ethics and Natural Law (Cooperation), and Natural Common Law (a grammar), provide the means of producing contracts (Constitutions), that are ‘scientific’ – which in testimonialism means ‘truthful’, and not open to creative interpretation by the judiciary. This ‘precision’ was necessary in order to increase the demand for warranty of due diligence against fraud from covering products and services, to covering information (speech). SOVEREIGNTY (WESTERN CIVILIZATION) Sovereignty (‘liberty in fact not by permission’), Market Civilization (association, cooperation, production, reproduction, production of commons, production of polities, production of group evolutionary strategy), and Western Group Evolutionary Strategy (Transcendence / Domestication), Provide an analytic explanation of the reasons for western rapid evolution in the bronze, iron, and steel ages. THE RESTORATION 1 – How we were met by supernatural mysticism, monotheistic religion, and pseudoscientific/pseudorational ‘religion’ by the people to the east, in each era. And how the current pseudoscientific came about. 2- How we can use Natural Law to restore western civilization, by reforming or rewriting our constitution and that of others. 3 – Including various institutional methods of producing commons truthfully. 4 – Including the necessity, under Sovereignty, of markets for the production of commons. 5 – Including the necessity of various policies under the group strategy of Transcendence So, given that we can use propertarianism and testimonialism to produce ANY government truthfully, what I THINK you are asking, is that if we chose to pursue Sovereignty and Transcendence to restore western civilization under strictly constructed natural law, what would be the optimum(?) end state? We can choose from any number of options, but the lowest risk is to selectively revoke, restore and amend the constitution and with it the judiciary, restore the monarchy and militia, reduce any ‘federal’ government to a corporeal insurer of last resort, with courts limited to dispute resolution on narrow forms of commercial non normative property; with a market for commons consisting of multiple “houses” representing various classes, (Territorial, Commercial, Familial, and Dependent) which vote by apportionment (put money to what they want), and any contract not opposed by the other houses on legal basis survives. In other words “a market” using some of the proceeds of “the markets” for the production of commons, that improve the returns in the market. My ‘belief’ (forecast) is that the proceeds of suppressing falsehood (by testimonialism) will be greater than the proceeds of suppressing mysticism (by empiricism). The converse question is that if you cannot provide warranty of due diligence of your words, then why should others tolerate them any more than whether they tolerate a lack of due diligence of your actions (services), or productions (goods)?f Every liar no matter how well intentioned finds an excuse to defend his lies. But why is it that we must tolerate lies?
-
Natural Law, Sovereignty, and the Restoration
Mar 02, 2017 9:42am NATURAL LAW, SOVEREIGNTY, AND THE RESTORATION NATURAL LAW Testimonialism: Epistemology and Truth (Testimony), and Propertarianism: Ethics and Natural Law (Cooperation), and Natural Common Law (a grammar), provide the means of producing contracts (Constitutions), that are ‘scientific’ – which in testimonialism means ‘truthful’, and not open to creative interpretation by the judiciary. This ‘precision’ was necessary in order to increase the demand for warranty of due diligence against fraud from covering products and services, to covering information (speech). SOVEREIGNTY (WESTERN CIVILIZATION) Sovereignty (‘liberty in fact not by permission’), Market Civilization (association, cooperation, production, reproduction, production of commons, production of polities, production of group evolutionary strategy), and Western Group Evolutionary Strategy (Transcendence / Domestication), Provide an analytic explanation of the reasons for western rapid evolution in the bronze, iron, and steel ages. THE RESTORATION 1 – How we were met by supernatural mysticism, monotheistic religion, and pseudoscientific/pseudorational ‘religion’ by the people to the east, in each era. And how the current pseudoscientific came about. 2- How we can use Natural Law to restore western civilization, by reforming or rewriting our constitution and that of others. 3 – Including various institutional methods of producing commons truthfully. 4 – Including the necessity, under Sovereignty, of markets for the production of commons. 5 – Including the necessity of various policies under the group strategy of Transcendence So, given that we can use propertarianism and testimonialism to produce ANY government truthfully, what I THINK you are asking, is that if we chose to pursue Sovereignty and Transcendence to restore western civilization under strictly constructed natural law, what would be the optimum(?) end state? We can choose from any number of options, but the lowest risk is to selectively revoke, restore and amend the constitution and with it the judiciary, restore the monarchy and militia, reduce any ‘federal’ government to a corporeal insurer of last resort, with courts limited to dispute resolution on narrow forms of commercial non normative property; with a market for commons consisting of multiple “houses” representing various classes, (Territorial, Commercial, Familial, and Dependent) which vote by apportionment (put money to what they want), and any contract not opposed by the other houses on legal basis survives. In other words “a market” using some of the proceeds of “the markets” for the production of commons, that improve the returns in the market. My ‘belief’ (forecast) is that the proceeds of suppressing falsehood (by testimonialism) will be greater than the proceeds of suppressing mysticism (by empiricism). The converse question is that if you cannot provide warranty of due diligence of your words, then why should others tolerate them any more than whether they tolerate a lack of due diligence of your actions (services), or productions (goods)?f Every liar no matter how well intentioned finds an excuse to defend his lies. But why is it that we must tolerate lies?
-
Natural Law Doesn’t Justify Aristocracy – It Justifies Markets – It Is Just That Natural Law Is Only Possible Under Aristocracy
btw: (important) I advocate natural law because it forces reciprocity, and by reciprocity forces markets in everything. The only thing the underclasses have to trade is self control, and particularly reproductive self control. The outcome of that self control turns out to be eugenic – which is a benefit by externality. The reason I advocate aristocracy, is because the only thing the strong have to trade is violence, and the only use that violence can be put to under reciprocity is the construction of reciprocity (natural law), markets, and the externality of eugenic transcendence. And because in history, if they do not profit from rule by their violence, they will be consumed parasitically by those who profit from deceit(left), or commerce (middle), I merely state this eugenic transcendence aesthetically to answer my critics that I fail to provide an aesthetic to the aristocratic(father), and only provide the aesthetic to the bourgeoise (brother). the left (mother) lacks agency so their approval is only something to explain and judge, not ask since their aesthetic is not one of reciprocity but parasitism. As a criticism of those who follow me as far as I know, only Eli, Butch, and TRS’s Mike Enoch were able to understand this without explanation. Why? you and I evolved and have been trained, to think in ideal types and on dimension of difference, not in equilibria producing desirable outcomes by externality of following incentives rather simple one or two dimensional rules. We evolved at human scale, but must now answer questions of large numbers beyond human scale. Can you evolve to think in equilibrial, external, mutli-causal density? Of course you can. There are only so many dimensions of causes that affect our judgements. And I cannot tell if this is an physical (iq) limitation, a normative limitation(habit), or pedagogical (learning) question, but since I can do it, others must be able to. And I can observe from my own learning and Eli’s that it is not intuitive – like economics it is precisely counter-intuitive, and must become intuitive -like reading , math, and economics – to make use of it. ) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (h/t: Bill Joslin for indirectly telling me I had to state this.) 🙂
-
Natural Law Doesn’t Justify Aristocracy – It Justifies Markets – It Is Just That Natural Law Is Only Possible Under Aristocracy
btw: (important) I advocate natural law because it forces reciprocity, and by reciprocity forces markets in everything. The only thing the underclasses have to trade is self control, and particularly reproductive self control. The outcome of that self control turns out to be eugenic – which is a benefit by externality. The reason I advocate aristocracy, is because the only thing the strong have to trade is violence, and the only use that violence can be put to under reciprocity is the construction of reciprocity (natural law), markets, and the externality of eugenic transcendence. And because in history, if they do not profit from rule by their violence, they will be consumed parasitically by those who profit from deceit(left), or commerce (middle), I merely state this eugenic transcendence aesthetically to answer my critics that I fail to provide an aesthetic to the aristocratic(father), and only provide the aesthetic to the bourgeoise (brother). the left (mother) lacks agency so their approval is only something to explain and judge, not ask since their aesthetic is not one of reciprocity but parasitism. As a criticism of those who follow me as far as I know, only Eli, Butch, and TRS’s Mike Enoch were able to understand this without explanation. Why? you and I evolved and have been trained, to think in ideal types and on dimension of difference, not in equilibria producing desirable outcomes by externality of following incentives rather simple one or two dimensional rules. We evolved at human scale, but must now answer questions of large numbers beyond human scale. Can you evolve to think in equilibrial, external, mutli-causal density? Of course you can. There are only so many dimensions of causes that affect our judgements. And I cannot tell if this is an physical (iq) limitation, a normative limitation(habit), or pedagogical (learning) question, but since I can do it, others must be able to. And I can observe from my own learning and Eli’s that it is not intuitive – like economics it is precisely counter-intuitive, and must become intuitive -like reading , math, and economics – to make use of it. ) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (h/t: Bill Joslin for indirectly telling me I had to state this.) 🙂
-
I Justify Markets – In Everything.
I justify markets in everything. Markets in everything requires natural law, and natural law requires aristocracy. Aristocracy like violence is neither good nor bad. It is the ends that aristocracy and violence are put to that determine good or bad. As such, advocacy of markets (reciprocity/cooperation/non-aggression) merely requires aristocracy as a cost (Input). I remain a ‘libertarian’ in the sense that I desire liberty and freedom even if I can only obtain it through purchasing sovereignty with the promise of violence. But it is a condition of sovereignty for the aristocracy, liberty for the upper, freedom for the middle and working, and subsidy for the dependent classes that I am seeking to justify. And I can find no other political argument that survives tests of scale (time).
-
I Justify Markets – In Everything.
I justify markets in everything. Markets in everything requires natural law, and natural law requires aristocracy. Aristocracy like violence is neither good nor bad. It is the ends that aristocracy and violence are put to that determine good or bad. As such, advocacy of markets (reciprocity/cooperation/non-aggression) merely requires aristocracy as a cost (Input). I remain a ‘libertarian’ in the sense that I desire liberty and freedom even if I can only obtain it through purchasing sovereignty with the promise of violence. But it is a condition of sovereignty for the aristocracy, liberty for the upper, freedom for the middle and working, and subsidy for the dependent classes that I am seeking to justify. And I can find no other political argument that survives tests of scale (time).