[M]AYBE IT’S NOT OBVIOUS: PROPERTARIANISM IS FOR THE PROSECUTION: THE SHERIFF, THE KNIGHT, THE JUDGE It’s not belief. It’s not a religion. It’s law. A law for the prosecution of those who have engineered deceptions by which to confiscate our private and common property by appealing to our altruistic morality. Every Man A Sheriff, Every man a Knight, Every Man A Judge. No mercy. No forgiveness. No Tolerance. Make parasitism impossible leaving only participation in the market for the production of commons, goods, and services, the only possible means of survival.
Theme: Responsibility
-
Propertarianism is for the Prosecution: Sheriff, Knight, Judge
[M]AYBE IT’S NOT OBVIOUS: PROPERTARIANISM IS FOR THE PROSECUTION: THE SHERIFF, THE KNIGHT, THE JUDGE It’s not belief. It’s not a religion. It’s law. A law for the prosecution of those who have engineered deceptions by which to confiscate our private and common property by appealing to our altruistic morality. Every Man A Sheriff, Every man a Knight, Every Man A Judge. No mercy. No forgiveness. No Tolerance. Make parasitism impossible leaving only participation in the market for the production of commons, goods, and services, the only possible means of survival.
-
The Problem of Moral Intent Without the Skills of Moral Action
[T]he moral man is skeptical. If you come at me with questions it would be the actions of a moral man. But as a teacher of others and a philosopher myself I grasp that it is quite difficult to ask questions when you do not know what to ask. So the only option available to one is to criticize until one knows what questions to ask. So it is not necessarily that one intends immorality. It is that we stumble the best we can with the skills at our disposal. As such you have moral intent but not the ability to act morally. I often spend a generous amount of time with those of moral intent but lacking in moral skills, in order to help them discover what questions they might want to ask. This is my contribution to the commons. Tolerance. Patience. Cost. A cost for which many people have suggested I waste my time. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
The Problem of Moral Intent Without the Skills of Moral Action
[T]he moral man is skeptical. If you come at me with questions it would be the actions of a moral man. But as a teacher of others and a philosopher myself I grasp that it is quite difficult to ask questions when you do not know what to ask. So the only option available to one is to criticize until one knows what questions to ask. So it is not necessarily that one intends immorality. It is that we stumble the best we can with the skills at our disposal. As such you have moral intent but not the ability to act morally. I often spend a generous amount of time with those of moral intent but lacking in moral skills, in order to help them discover what questions they might want to ask. This is my contribution to the commons. Tolerance. Patience. Cost. A cost for which many people have suggested I waste my time. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
IF YOU CAN’T DEFEND IT THEN WHY DO YOU ADVOCATE IT? — You are not making reaso
IF YOU CAN’T DEFEND IT THEN WHY DO YOU ADVOCATE IT?
— You are not making reasonable arguments —
Translated: “I am too ignorant to understand what you’re saying”.
Uh huh. I”m one of the best living and working moral philosophers.
Either you can make an argument or you can’t. If you can’t that’s fine. But all categories are judged by the main, not the margins. And your attempt to suggest that some outlier is meaningful, is like me stating that a statistical irrelevance is meaningful. It’s not. Its just an act of deception.
We do not judge an individual by the properties of the class, we judge a class by the properties of the individuals. Else racism is rational.
As a class, islam is demonstrably a force for ignorance and poverty and conflcit in this world. Until it no longer is a force for ignorance and poverty and conflict in this world, and the most backward civilization on earth, there are not redeeming categorical virtues.
So you might say that these PEOPLE who happen to be muslims might be ok, but you cannot say that Islam is ok under any circumstances.
We are all in a world war against islam just as we were in a world war against communism. Why? Because islam is as destructive to the mind, as communism was to the economy.
That you lack the requisite knowledge to engage in this discussion should be evidence to you that you are not in a position to advocate one of the great evils of human history.
You do not know yet that you are a pawn because of your lack of sophistication. But as a specialist in truth I do.
You are selling mental cancer as a cure. You are no different than the distributor of muslim heroin with the promise of temporary experiential joy at the cost of long term demise.
This is what it is. You are an evil man whether you know it or not.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 08:50:00 UTC
-
THE PROBLEM OF MORAL INTENT WITHOUT SKILLS OF MORAL ACTION The moral man is skep
THE PROBLEM OF MORAL INTENT WITHOUT SKILLS OF MORAL ACTION
The moral man is skeptical. If you come at me with questions it would be the actions of a moral man.
But as a teacher of others and a philosopher myself I grasp that it is quite difficult to ask questions when you do not know what to ask.
So the only option available to one is to criticize until one knows what questions to ask.
So it is not necessarily that one intends immorality. It is that we stumble the best we can with the skills at our disposal.
As such you have moral intent but not the ability to act morally.
I often spend a generous amount of time with those of moral intent but lacking in moral skills, in order to help them discover what questions they might want to ask.
This is my contribution to the commons. Tolerance. Patience. Cost. A cost for which many people have suggested I waste my time.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 02:39:00 UTC
-
MAYBE IT’S NOT OBVIOUS: PROPERTARIANISM IS FOR THE PROSECUTION: THE SHERIFF, THE
MAYBE IT’S NOT OBVIOUS: PROPERTARIANISM IS FOR THE PROSECUTION: THE SHERIFF, THE KNIGHT, THE JUDGE
It’s not belief. It’s not a religion. It’s law. A law for the prosecution of those who have engineered deceptions by which to confiscate our private and common property by appealing to our altruistic morality.
Every Man A Sheriff, Every man a Knight, Every Man A Judge.
No mercy. No forgiveness. No Tolerance.
Make parasitism impossible leaving only participation in the market for the production of commons, goods, and services, the only possible means of survival.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 01:56:00 UTC
-
shaming me you do what you accuse me of”— Ah. But the condition is quite diffe
http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/19/propertarianism-is-for-the-prosecution/—“by shaming me you do what you accuse me of”—
Ah. But the condition is quite different. Lets see…
Work through it because you cannot escape the fact that you use misrepresentative language to obscure your attribution of authority to the self by justificationary-rationality, rather than to non-retaliation (cost) by ratio-empiricism. ie: you err.
We aren’t debating any longer. I accuse you of deceit. This deceit may be the product of wishful thinking. It may be justified by inarticulate obscurant language, but it is not deceit by intent, then it is deceit by wishful thinking none the less.
***NAP was employed by separatists to attempt to assert that out-group non-retaliation was a rule for in-group cooperation.*** Jewish law, culture, and religion attempt to preserve separatism so that they gain the benefits of the host’s commons production, without paying for the normative commons. Just as Gypsies do, but they keep the cost low enough, and appeal to our altruism enough, that the cost of extermination is more than we are willing to pay.
And this is the Libertine (NAP/ISV strategy), which is to claim not that separatism is a parasitic subgroup strategy within a host. But that all members of a polity should engage in separatist ethics.
And this is non-rational. It is the host’s production of commons that make free riding possible. It is the host’s production of commons that make the host itself possible. Because even your parasitic ethics of NAP/IVP must be constructed as a commons, and enforced as a commons.
***I’ll simplify it: we cannot all be parasites. ergo: libertinism is to commons as socialism is to production.*** Socialists lay claim to the fruits of other’s production. Libertines (rothbardians) lay claim to the fruits of others production of commons. But humans don’t tolerate free riders on production or commons. It’s a form of aggression against their property-en-toto: that which they have expended effort to inventory as potential for future production or consumption.
(This is probably more understandable to you than the technique of analytic philosophy.)
So, you see, that is what separates those of us who defend the commons from those of you who harm it. We pay the cost of commons maintenance. You do not.
And that is why you can select free riding on the commons using NAP/IVP and we select NA/DemonstratedProperty despite the high cost of policing the commons.
So since you engage in deceit and harm the commons, I engage in accusation.
And when that occurs we are not debating. I am prosecuting you.
Because you pollute the commons with excuses for non payment of them while relying upon them. ie you’re a parasite.
PROPERTARIANISM IS FOR THE PROSECUTION
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 01:27:00 UTC
-
Speaking the Truth
(reposted) [Y]ou can claim you have done sufficient due diligence to warrant your words against retribution. That is all you can claim. Otherwise you can speak to the air (yourself) but not to another. If you have done so you can err, or your information may be insufficient, or more information in the future may be uncovered. But we can never claim a thing is true if there is more information that can ever be presented that could falsify the claim. When we say something ‘is’ true. we CAN only say that we have done due diligence against it’s falsehood to the best or our knowledge and ability. If you say something ‘is’ true, you must also state how it exists, since ‘is’ refers to existence. We use the verb ‘to be’, especially in the form of ‘is’ to avoid describing how something exists – for rather complicated reasons – most of which are saving of effort, others are the high cost of changing between experience, intention, action, and observation – a grammatical cost that is quite high for us humans. What we evolved the verb “to be” to mean, is “I promise that you will come to the came conclusion by making the same observation” So to say ‘the cat is black’ is to say ‘if you observe this cat then it will appear black in color.’ This is the only thing you CAN mean, because it is the only existentially possible thing you could mean. We just habituate language out of experience and effort reduction, rather than follow rules of truthfulness of language, which is expensive to learn and speak. So that is what statements mean: they mean that you have made observations of something or other, translated that experience into analogies to experience, then spoken that to another who upon listening recreates the experience through language. He then fails to understand, or requires additional information until he does understand, and the additional information so that he does not err. So just as we accumulate sounds into words, we accumulate experiences generated by words into reconstructions of the speaker’s experience. You can convey truthfulness (tested), honesty(untested), error, bias, wishful thinking, deception and fantasy. But only you can create a statement so only you are responsible for the truthfulness of your statement. Your statement is not true. You speak truthfully(having tested), honestly(having not), in error, bias, wishful thinking, fantasy, or deception. That is all that is possible. Someone else finds your statement true when they reconstruct the same experience. So whey I say x=y I am saying that I promise you will also find that x=y if you choose to test this. This is all you CAN mean. Now you can say that you speak impulsively, honestly, or truthfully, or something in between. So that you cannot promise that the audience will also come to the same conclusion that you do. That is the difference between information (impulse), hypothesis(honesty), theory(truthfulness). So you can then only promise that what you’re offering is information, honesty, or truthfulness. But one must tell others which we are offering: information, honesty, or truthfulness. So correspondence exists when you have done due diligence on your observation, and when you consequent speech allows your audience to reconstructs your experience, and when they possess sufficient knowledge to do so. In other words the other person may lack the knowledge to reconstruct the experience of correspondence. This does not mean you cannot know a truth candidate. You can. Since you can reconstruct it. But you cannot test it without others with more knowledge. This is why science is a social construct. it is very hard to know the ‘ultimate’ most ‘parsimonious’ truthful statement because it is increasingly hard to possess sufficient information to know if it could produce greater correspondence. So in practicality, if you establish limits on your truthful statement such as “this works for tis circumstance’ then it is fairly easy. But if you say this works for N circumstances this gets increasingly difficult because there is more and more information that you can’t necessarily account for. You probably note by now that I do not rely upon ideal types, but force construction of both spectra and sequences when making arguments. And this is why I can make these statements. Because i have tested them for truthfulness before speaking them, and you on the other hand are speaking honestly, most likely because you do not yet know how to speak truthfully. Because it’s hard. I hope this was helpful to you. Affections. Curt
-
Speaking the Truth
(reposted) [Y]ou can claim you have done sufficient due diligence to warrant your words against retribution. That is all you can claim. Otherwise you can speak to the air (yourself) but not to another. If you have done so you can err, or your information may be insufficient, or more information in the future may be uncovered. But we can never claim a thing is true if there is more information that can ever be presented that could falsify the claim. When we say something ‘is’ true. we CAN only say that we have done due diligence against it’s falsehood to the best or our knowledge and ability. If you say something ‘is’ true, you must also state how it exists, since ‘is’ refers to existence. We use the verb ‘to be’, especially in the form of ‘is’ to avoid describing how something exists – for rather complicated reasons – most of which are saving of effort, others are the high cost of changing between experience, intention, action, and observation – a grammatical cost that is quite high for us humans. What we evolved the verb “to be” to mean, is “I promise that you will come to the came conclusion by making the same observation” So to say ‘the cat is black’ is to say ‘if you observe this cat then it will appear black in color.’ This is the only thing you CAN mean, because it is the only existentially possible thing you could mean. We just habituate language out of experience and effort reduction, rather than follow rules of truthfulness of language, which is expensive to learn and speak. So that is what statements mean: they mean that you have made observations of something or other, translated that experience into analogies to experience, then spoken that to another who upon listening recreates the experience through language. He then fails to understand, or requires additional information until he does understand, and the additional information so that he does not err. So just as we accumulate sounds into words, we accumulate experiences generated by words into reconstructions of the speaker’s experience. You can convey truthfulness (tested), honesty(untested), error, bias, wishful thinking, deception and fantasy. But only you can create a statement so only you are responsible for the truthfulness of your statement. Your statement is not true. You speak truthfully(having tested), honestly(having not), in error, bias, wishful thinking, fantasy, or deception. That is all that is possible. Someone else finds your statement true when they reconstruct the same experience. So whey I say x=y I am saying that I promise you will also find that x=y if you choose to test this. This is all you CAN mean. Now you can say that you speak impulsively, honestly, or truthfully, or something in between. So that you cannot promise that the audience will also come to the same conclusion that you do. That is the difference between information (impulse), hypothesis(honesty), theory(truthfulness). So you can then only promise that what you’re offering is information, honesty, or truthfulness. But one must tell others which we are offering: information, honesty, or truthfulness. So correspondence exists when you have done due diligence on your observation, and when you consequent speech allows your audience to reconstructs your experience, and when they possess sufficient knowledge to do so. In other words the other person may lack the knowledge to reconstruct the experience of correspondence. This does not mean you cannot know a truth candidate. You can. Since you can reconstruct it. But you cannot test it without others with more knowledge. This is why science is a social construct. it is very hard to know the ‘ultimate’ most ‘parsimonious’ truthful statement because it is increasingly hard to possess sufficient information to know if it could produce greater correspondence. So in practicality, if you establish limits on your truthful statement such as “this works for tis circumstance’ then it is fairly easy. But if you say this works for N circumstances this gets increasingly difficult because there is more and more information that you can’t necessarily account for. You probably note by now that I do not rely upon ideal types, but force construction of both spectra and sequences when making arguments. And this is why I can make these statements. Because i have tested them for truthfulness before speaking them, and you on the other hand are speaking honestly, most likely because you do not yet know how to speak truthfully. Because it’s hard. I hope this was helpful to you. Affections. Curt