(propertarianism core) We can restore the west’s evolutionary trajectory as the principle source of mankind’s innovation, restore our people and our civilization, and overthrow a century and a half of pseudoscience, by restoring to the common law the organizing principle of sovereignty – and consequential markets in everything, with just one law: truthful speech by the involuntary warranty of due diligence against error, bias, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience and deceit, for the purpose of circumventing a voluntary, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, limited to productive externalities, by the imposition of costs against property in toto: that broad spectrum of things, relationships, behaviors, and commons, which we have borne costs to inventory, without imposing costs upon the things, behaviors, and commons of others. This warranty is achieved by proofs (demonstrations) of consistency in 1) categorical consistency, 2) internal consistency, 3) empirical consistency, 4) existential consistency, 5) moral consistency, 6) scope consistency. And while it might take a small effort to learn how to provide these warranties on all information, just as we have learned to provide warranties on products, warranties on services, and limited warranties on the reporting of basic research, we can complete the scientific method and require these proofs on all information. In every era we invent new expansions of the method of cooperation we call the division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy. But in doing so we create greater asymmetries of knowledge, and therefore new opportunities to invent means of benefitting from the imposition of costs upon others that we call ‘parasitism’. And we rely upon courts, testimony, jury, judge, empirical truth, and the accumulated empirical knowledge of the common law of torts, to incrementally suppress and render illegal each innovation in parasitism as soon as the first case adjudicated is recorded for reference by other lawyers, prosecutors, and judges. The west was not first, nor wealthiest, nor possessed of greater numbers, superior resources, superior climate. But instead, by accident of circumstance, chose Sovereignty as their principle of organization – a choice which is possible only under empirical, testimonial speech we call ‘truth’, and a market for the resolution of any negotiation, exchange, or conflict – depriving all of authority over anything other than the preservation of sovereignty. Europeans created the distributed dictatorship of sovereign men, open to any man willing and able to reciprocally insure every other against violations of his sovereignty. This choice resulted in a civilization that calculates advancements faster than all other organizing models, and produces the least opportunity for parasitism and rents. And it is this velocity in the ancient and modern worlds that has allowed the west to defeat the red queen of corruption, and drag mankind kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, mysticism, justificationism, conflationism, deception, hunger, poverty, physical labor, cellular decay, disease, and increasingly, the vicissitudes of nature, in an unforgiving universe hostile to life in all but the rarest of exceptions.
Theme: Reciprocity
-
We had it right with heroic paganism (hero worship, nature worship), houses for
We had it right with heroic paganism (hero worship, nature worship), houses for each class, and the common natural law.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-18 13:58:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799612833432539136
Reply addressees: @PeanutArbuckle
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799611745971081216
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/799611745971081216
-
I do not mention natural rights.I refer to NATURAL LAW.And to a very precise, pe
I do not mention natural rights.I refer to NATURAL LAW.And to a very precise, perfectly decidable definition of Natural Law.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-17 18:33:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799319673913352197
Reply addressees: @BulgakovsPilot
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799319121326325760
IN REPLY TO:
@BulgakovsPilot
@curtdoolittle is the concept of natural rights even desirable?
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799319121326325760
-
@nntaleb uses the vernacular ‘skin in the game’,and I use the legal ‘warranty’ a
@nntaleb uses the vernacular ‘skin in the game’,and I use the legal ‘warranty’ and ‘warranty of due diligence’.But the argument is the same.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-17 18:26:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799317697800585216
-
Sorry but if your religion isn’t compatible with natural law, then it’s not comp
Sorry but if your religion isn’t compatible with natural law, then it’s not compatible with rule of law, and not compatible with the west.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-17 18:19:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799316154506444800
-
CHRISTIANITY, JUDAISM, AND ISLAM: MORAL OR IMMORAL? Assuming you teach Christian
CHRISTIANITY, JUDAISM, AND ISLAM: MORAL OR IMMORAL?
Assuming you teach Christianity as myth rather than history, by and large it’s compatible with natural law. But not Judaism. And not Islam.
QUESTION…
—“I’d enjoy it if you’d elaborate on that.”—Rex May
Well, if by Christianity we are talking about the content of the bible, and in particular of the new testament, then this is different than the doctrines of the church.
1) The ten commandments enumerate what we call natural law, or property rights, prohibiting envy,deceit,interference in others contract, theft, and murder – thereby preserving the value of cooperation.
The nuclear family is the basic unit of social production, and the costs of it must be born by all of us in every generation for the good of all.
Invest heavily in the creation of opportunity and insurance of others even in the face of offense and rejection by treating non-kin with the tolerance and care of kin, in order to increase the number of those with whom we can cooperate with us, just as we cooperate with kin.
Impulsivity, Selfishness, Arrogance and Hubris await us at every moment and it is only through constant practice at patience that we learn enough about the world to avoid impulsivity, selfishness, arrogance, and hubris.
The state – the aristocracy and our enemies – cannot be resisted by the force of the weak, but the weak can insure one another independently of the state – we are weak, but if we are many, and we treat one another as kin, we will be equally as strong in resisting the state. If we are not dependent on the state, but dependent upon one another, we create the power of a state without a state.
Regular prayer for advice to an all knowing ‘father’ will teach you to be as honest with yourself, and once honest with yourself honest with others.
Reserve regular time to contemplate this law together, and seek to apply and improve it in daily life.
There is no law higher than this. And any that says or does otherwise is not only to be mistrusted, but shunned, and if necessary, punished.
2) most of the Babylonian myths are stated in slave language, but still informative. Read in parallel to the greek myths they’re the lower class version for the weak, just as the greek myths for the strong.
3) the lives of the saints tell us about how to extend that kinship love.
4) most of the catholic encyclopedia provides an exceptional history of Europe.
5) the church dogma is reducible to “we will ostracize you if you don’t believe this nonsense as your price of insurance by the insurer of last resort: the church”. The rest is all drivel.
6) the content of a religion varies, but the method of constructing a religion through the evocation of the elation we feel from the pack response in every walk of life remains constant. All members of all religions think that it is the content that provides the elation and spirituality but it is merely the pack response produced by the rituals.
We can judge the content of the message separately. Christianity’s content tends to be compatible with natural (cooperative) law.
QUESTION…
—“Very informative. Could you add something about how Judaism and Islam don’t have the same effect? I’d like to make a blog post out of this.—Rex May
FIRST THINGS FIRST
It is not obvious, even to those who have followed me for a while, that using propertarian analysis is quite simple if you simple look for changes in the composition of capital by voluntary or involuntary, fully informed or not fully informed, truthful or untruthful, warrantied or not warrantied, transfers. So my criticisms aren’t arbitrary.
CHRISTIANITY
Christianity consists mostly of church manufactured dogma for the purpose of persisting authoritarian rule, by preserving the ignorance of the population, but suggesting, directing, and commanding them to act in accordance with natural law with one another, using readings from the text. This is, from what I understand, why prosperity increases with the distribution of Christianity: trust extension through constant repetition and virtue signaling.
BUT WHAT DO WE MEAN BY CHRISTIANITY?
However, we are often the victims of the fact that the church held a near monopoly on literacy, and just as Bede manufactured a history of England, the church manufactured a history of its own over-importance. The reason being that the church/state divide was always present – a division of houses of government. So the church’s message of submission must be retained in context of the nobility’s caprice, aggression, and violence – a constant battle between two extremes.
Once literacy arrives via the printing press, and the bible is available in the vulgate, and other books are available as competitors to the dogma, Christianity does not consist of the church falsehoods and authoritarianism, but the expansion of Christian virtues. (The so called “germanicization of Christianity”.) These virtues combine with the rise of the Hansa civilization’s gradual middle class expansion, and the expansion of the population after the decline of the plagues. The power of the church declines. And the number of educated preachers increases (my family members among them in England). We see the professionalization of the craft of teaching rather than the expansion of the church bureaucracy.
When I refer to christianity, I am referring to the german professional era rather than latin bureaucratic era. The latin era which I consider lingering only in third world countries. And moreover, that the decline of the church has largely to do with the failure to complete the transition of the role of the priesthood to professional teachers that not only retain myth and ritual, but that teach what the common people need to be taught in order to oppose the (evil) religion of the totalitarian state: fitness, virtues, friendship, marriage, parenting, household management, money, accounting, economics, natural law, history, and the conduct of WAR. And to provide banking services that have been monopolized by the state against the interest of the people. This is the reason for the failure of the church to preserve intergenerational relevance, while the state simply “manufactures skilled labor for the tax-mines”.
JUDAISM
Judaism is poly-moral. In other words, there are different moral standards for in-group and out-group members. The general strategy is to contribute nothing to the commons, nothing to the host, but to extract and hold within the clan (tribe) every calorie possible. It is perfectly acceptable to create negative externalities, to ‘cheat’, and it is part of the law that permits them to – and encourages them to.
So where Christianity tries to increase their numbers by low-cost purchase of options to build trust, Judaism tries to accumulate capital by parasitic exploitation of the commons and host.
ISLAMISM
islamism is immoral. it seeks and spreads obedience and ignorance. it asks not for christian productivity and trust expansion to all, and instead of jewish parasitism, seeks expansionary conquest and predation – the expansion of mandatory ignorance. And it does so by fascinating means: the promise of respect for submission (non-contribution) rather than contribution. Islam spreads the curse of ignorance stagnation illiteracy and impulsivity and weaponizes reproduction. it is not a primitive religion. This is the mistake we make. it is a very sophisticated means of spreading ignorance via the expansion of a lower class that is antagonistic to any competitor that falsifies its false promise by higher correspondence with reality.
So:
Once we have literacy and have escaped the church’s imposition of ignorance and submission against the population, we are left with the current state of these three Abrahamic religions:
1 – (Reformed) Christian expansion of trust and production.
2 – Jewish expansion of deceit and parasitism
3 – Islamic expansion of ignorance and predation.
If that is not a damnation of all that exists in all three then I don’t know what is. But we have largely reformed Christianity. And the only step remaining is to redirect our churches to their role as professional teachers of intertemporal knowledge that is a competitor to the predatory education of the state.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-17 17:58:00 UTC
-
Sorry but if your religion isn’t compatible with natural law, then it’s not comp
Sorry but if your religion isn’t compatible with natural law, then it’s not compatible with rule of law, and not compatible with the west.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-17 13:19:00 UTC
-
SCHOOLING A WELL MEANING FOOL IN THE SCIENCE OF MORALITY —“You draw a strong d
SCHOOLING A WELL MEANING FOOL IN THE SCIENCE OF MORALITY
—“You draw a strong distinction between the moral validity of ostracism and the moral validity of using violence. I reject your framework. I think both social and political control require justification. I also think that most people are with me and not with you. …. You’re quite mad, you know.”— Kevin Vallier
Perhaps, but madmen can construct non-feeble attempts at arguments, and mere fools appear not able to.
So I can’t afford to eviscerate anyone who engages in this many errors, but I’ll take a moment and invest it in your intellectual future.
1) justification, validity, moral justification are pseudoscientific terms, since all justificationism is pseudoscientific. We can ‘justify’ a court’s decision, or we can justify adherence to norms, or justify our reason, but this says nothing about whether the premises of the legislation, the premises of the norms, the premises of our reasoning are true. We merely explain the route we took.
2) assuming our initial premise is true, and each of our subsequent operations (reasonings) is true, then there is at least some chance of truthful content in the eventual deduction. In this case you have not specified what defines moral but seek circularly to depend upon that definition through intuition rather than axiomatic declaration. Thereby proving the first ridicule of amateur philosophy: that all discourse devolves into a debate over norms not truths – thereby ‘justifying’ anything we can imagine. So perhaps to you, you questions in this post seem insightful, but to a professional or skilled amateur, they are merely verbal parlor games – full of syllables saying nothing.
3) Polylogism can’t be true. There exist only more erroneous and less erroneous, more biased and less biased, more wishful thinking and less wishful thinking, more suggestive and less suggestive, more obscurant and less obscurant, more deceitful and less deceitful arguments, just as there are only more moral and less moral arguments. So you are not making a ‘differen’t argument, by practicing ‘different’ philosophy, but you are merely engaging in multiple layers of verbal excuses by which to rely upon intuition (taste) and conflate it with truth (testimonial parsimony) as a means by which to justify your priors, in order to either signal others or yourself.
4) As for the basis of morality, we know it: the value of cooperation is so disproportionately rewarding for a life form as expensive as a human being, that evolved from non-cooperating life forms, and retain the choice of cooperating or non cooperating or cheating, or preying upon one another, that we preserve the incentive to cooperate by paying disproportionately high costs to punish cheaters(exceptions), and pay many small costs to invest (buy options) on future cooperation and pay substantial costs (buy options) on reciprocal insurance in times of harm. But that since these costs could be infinite, our investments (of evolutionary necessity) decline with kin(genetic) distance.
(As examples, The advent of Judaism was to prohibit external insurance and investment outside of the tribe as a resistance movement against competitors. The advent of Christianity was to extend investment beyond kin and tribe as a resistance movement against the aristocracy. Islam is a more aggressive form of Judaism. We all seek to increase our numbers. but we do so through various means. Christianity by extension of kinship trust, Islam by indoctrination and status-compensation(bribery), and Judaism by economic parasitism, and gypsies by predation.)
Now, all human groups exist in various geographies imposing various costs and providing various benefits. All groups are faced with more diverse competitors or lack them. All groups have been more or less successful at paedomorphic evolution than others (domestication and civilization). All groups have been more or less successful at institutional and economic and intellectual development than other groups. All groups have evolved more productive or more parasitic group evolutionary strategies. And so different groups evolved different moral NORMS: rules by which to avoid impositions of costs on in-group members, as well as required investments in in-group members. Just as we developed legislative norms which require the observation of certain rules of investment and cost.
So within a group’s evolutionary (survival) strategy, using the groups norms and legislation, it is possible for any given moral norm, or legislative rule, to be objectively moral or immoral, just as it is possible for any group’s evolutionary strategy to be objectively moral or immoral. And it is common for groups to LIE and state that their norms are moral truths, and legislation is in fact law as a means of imposing unquestioning authority on in-group members. But just as group evolutionary strategies, moral norms, and legislative rules are mere PRAGMATISMS, morality and law are mere truths – because they provide decidability ACROSS various pragmatisms-falsely claimed to be truths.
5) So, first we are faced with the problem of falsifying this argument – and we can’t do so empirically or logically. (go ahead and try).
Secondly, once we provide decidability in a domain the problem is providing other means of decidability that survive the tests of immorality themselves: attempted free riding, parasitism, and theft.
And third, you might ask yourself why any attempt at moral argument would avoid accounting for costs except to perpetuate a fraud, just as any other failure to account for costs in any other domain of inquiry can only be explained by attempt to perpetuate a fraud.
6) So you see, my ‘system’ requires only the process we call ‘science’: to eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and deceit from our arguments. And one of the necessary means of ensuring we are not engaging in any form of error, bias, or deceit, is the application existential consistency and full accounting, by the operational description of a sequence of actions in objective verse. property(or more accurately ‘investment’), is merely the unit of measure by which we test cooperation.
7) Now if you know any (meaningful) professors of philosophy it is possible that you can use this post to learn something – although most philosophy departments are now categorized with literature, religion, or pseudoscience, depending upon the university, there remain people of calibre to speak with in at least logic and the philosophy of science. And if that person disagrees with me I’ll openly offer to debate him or her. Not that it’s likely since this is fairly simplistic reasoning at least as I have outlined it here.
If your world is a comfortable lie that is ok. plenty of people disliked darwin or newton’s or galileo’s or machiavelli’s or aristotle’s or socrates’ arguments since each of them exposed the frauds of their eras hiding under the pretense of moral norms. And I do not expect you to enjoy the fact that I’m demonstrating that the (antique) argumentative technique you are using is one of those fraudulent moral norms evolved to use justification in order to make the fraudulent claim that a norm or legislative rule is either ‘true’ or ‘moral’. But that is what you are doing.
Morality: the science of cooperation, is no different from any other science, other than it is dearer to us, and makes us more uncomfortable.
Precisely because cooperation is so valuable to us – and so expensive to obtain. That we fabricate all sorts of lies to encourage it, as well as norms and legislation.
What a lovely web of lies we weave.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
(PS: when did it ever matter how many people believed something? Last I knew, more people on earth believed it was flat. Truth isn’t a democratically determined property.)
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-17 04:22:00 UTC
-
No. Science Is A Moral Discipline Within Natural Law: The Means By Which We Warrant The Truthfulness Of Our Statements.
(Ethelbert, Jesus, and Kant say the same thing) The languages of science(testimony), physical science, propertarianism (social science), natural law (science of dispute resolution), accounting, finance, and economics, (measurement of production), function as the universal language of truth-telling.
The discipline of science asks us to warranty that we have performed due diligence on our statements. We warranty that we have eliminated error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, and deceit from our utterances. That’s what science is: A NATURAL LAW: a warranty of our information, just like the warranty of our services, just as the warranty of our products, just as the warranty of our speech. Period. End of story. I know. You thought you were smart. You were so proud that you had transcended superstition. But it never occurred to you that you were just as ridiculous in the present generation due to the pseudosciences of Marx, Freud, Boaz, Adorno than your superstitious ancestors were in the pseudoscience of theology. Ok. Have we got that straight? Look in the mirror. Repeat after me: “I was suckered by pseudoscience, just like my ancestors were suckered by superstition. I am a sucker. I pledge not to be a sucker any longer. There is only one moral rule in both silver(negative) and gold (positive) forms: Impose not cost upon the cost born by others, by limiting yourself to actions and words, consisting only of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to productive externalities. Ethelbert (Anglo-Saxon Silver Rule), Jesus (Golden-Rule), and Kant (bi-metal rule), all said the same thing. Everything else is lies to justify theft and to circumvent voluntary transfers between individuals classes and groups. Ok. We’re done here. “Please stop torturing me with your postmodern superstitions, ok?. Thanks, -The Management.” Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy -
No. Science Is A Moral Discipline Within Natural Law: The Means By Which We Warrant The Truthfulness Of Our Statements.
(Ethelbert, Jesus, and Kant say the same thing) The languages of science(testimony), physical science, propertarianism (social science), natural law (science of dispute resolution), accounting, finance, and economics, (measurement of production), function as the universal language of truth-telling.
The discipline of science asks us to warranty that we have performed due diligence on our statements. We warranty that we have eliminated error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, and deceit from our utterances. That’s what science is: A NATURAL LAW: a warranty of our information, just like the warranty of our services, just as the warranty of our products, just as the warranty of our speech. Period. End of story. I know. You thought you were smart. You were so proud that you had transcended superstition. But it never occurred to you that you were just as ridiculous in the present generation due to the pseudosciences of Marx, Freud, Boaz, Adorno than your superstitious ancestors were in the pseudoscience of theology. Ok. Have we got that straight? Look in the mirror. Repeat after me: “I was suckered by pseudoscience, just like my ancestors were suckered by superstition. I am a sucker. I pledge not to be a sucker any longer. There is only one moral rule in both silver(negative) and gold (positive) forms: Impose not cost upon the cost born by others, by limiting yourself to actions and words, consisting only of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to productive externalities. Ethelbert (Anglo-Saxon Silver Rule), Jesus (Golden-Rule), and Kant (bi-metal rule), all said the same thing. Everything else is lies to justify theft and to circumvent voluntary transfers between individuals classes and groups. Ok. We’re done here. “Please stop torturing me with your postmodern superstitions, ok?. Thanks, -The Management.” Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy