MORAL AUTHORITY
—–
The Lied To Us And Ours;
They Abused Our Trust;
The Broke The Contract Of Altruism.
They Have Committed Genocide;
And it’s Genocide Against Us;
—–
–And that’s the evidence not opinion–
(Getting there. Something like that.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-31 09:04:00 UTC
WHEN DID WE STOP ENFORCING TRUTH, AND WHY?
When did we, the aristocracy, stop enforcing truth telling at the point of a sword? Seriously. When and why?
Did we hold truth as a life or death standard only between ourselves?
Did we extend the franchise without extending the requirement for truth telling?
Sigh. We thought it was just property ownership that was required. But property ownership requires truth telling.
We didn’t understand that universal enfranchisement meant opening the pandora’s box of lies.
Or is it worse, in that we could profit from lying? I can’t find that evidence. What I find evidence of, is that the liars found profit in lying to one another.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-31 08:20:00 UTC
THE DEVELOPMENT, DESTRUCTION AND RESTORATION OF TRUTH
THE CONSEQUENCES OF TRUTH TELLING
What we westerners didn’t and don’t understand is the importance of truth telling as constant training for seeing the world in terms that we would eventually call ‘scientific’. And, consequently, if you tell the truth then you require debate to resolve conflicts. If you conduct debate you require reason. If you conduct reason you will eventually require science (evidence). If you conduct science you will eventually run into the problem of observability and scale and require instruments (instrumentalism). You do not require a third party ideal mythology as means of arbitrating rules. If you tell the truth you can use a jury, and do not need a third party authority arbitrating disputes. Instead of a mythology you can construct common laws. If you tell the truth and have common laws you can build trade FASTER than other people build trade. And that is the secret to the west. We started the bronze age later than everyone else, and produce the first steps of the industrial revolution in greece. We were forcibly indoctrinated into authoritarianism under Christianity, but once we rid ourselves of the authoritarianism, we built the second industrial revolution, and dragged the world out of ignorance and poverty in only 500 years.
Truth telling creates universalism. Just as much as distributed family structures do under manorialism.
BRIBERY INTO A CULTURE OF LIES
Meanwhile the utility of not speaking the truth, or speaking in allegory (loaded and framed language) or using overloading to force allegorical speech (monotheistic religion), is a constant competitor to the high cost of truth telling to the individual, but the high value of truth telling to the group.
So, competitor need only bribe you marginally, and eliminate the punishment for not telling the truth, and eventually, not thinking truthfully, or even, turning lying into a ‘good’, in order easily persuade a population to justify not telling the truth.
The easiest way to to do that is by overloading: To use the media. Public intellectuals. Academics. Writers. To saturate society with bribes to cease paying the high cost of truth telling.
The conspiracy against truth telling. Bribery into lying. And funding it with the state redistribution, and entertainment media.
THE RESTORATION
The commons is our property. The property of any man who would fight to keep the land upon which we build physical and normative commons. Any shareholder can bring a suit against violations of that property. And under common law we can force the truth. And we can re-habituate truth by prosecuting and punishing liars, and those who create the incentive to lie. There is no difference between a virus that damages hardware and a meme that damages the commons of truth telling. Intellectuals produce products for the commons, and if you are paid for the production of those products then you are open to prosecution for the selling of defective and harmful products.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-31 03:21:00 UTC
NO. I DON”T NEED TO SOLVE IT. MACDONALD DID: ALTRUISM, GUILT, AND ALTRUISTIC PUNISHMENT
The reason I didn’t buy it the first time around is because he places a lot of emphasis on genetic tendency and I tend to treat such things as neutral, and to look for information-based (normative and metaphysical) causes to behavior first.
While there are clear genetic differences in behavior between our tribes, I tend to look for normative answers not genetic ones. Usually they walk hand-in-hand.
BUT I DO NEED TO DEFEND AGAINST IT.
1) All Groups Must Act In Self Interest.
2) Cooperation is preferable to parasitism, is preferable to conquest, is preferable to extermination. And if we cannot engage in cooperation, you may NOT engage in parasitism, conquest or extermination.
3) No Guilt Ever. (Nor colonialism). Speak Truthfully. No Guilt.
4) The world cannot adopt our civilization, whether genetic, normative or both.
5) We cannot tolerate excessive dilution of our civilization, whether genetic normative or both.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-31 00:52:00 UTC
TELLING THE TRUTH VS BUILDING HIGH TRUST
An essay on responsibility for speaking the truth, producing the consequence of high trust.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-30 13:34:00 UTC
CURIOUS THOUGHT: What Happens If We?…….
So, lets say that tomorrow, all property rights violations by corporations were immediately open to suit by any individual, albeit under loser-pays. What difference would there really be?
I am not sure that there would be much really.
Now, lets say one month later, all special privileges for all businesses and collective bargaining groups disappeared: all barriers to competition etc. How would the world be any different?
I think that there would be a bit of difference.
Now, lets say that one month later, all consumer credit (not producer credit) was provided directly from the treasury, at minimum interest, to individuals by credit card, bypassing the banks.
I think there would be a lot of difference. Mostly because the financial system would be cut out of the distribution of liquidity.
Now,let’s say, that one month later, instead of lowering interest rates, the treasury just distributed money directly to those consumer credit cards. What would change?
I think the change would be radical. And most of it for the good.
Particularly since no one would tolerate a single immigrant who was a non producer.
Interesting.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-29 13:41:00 UTC
[I]f one had to be insured to issue public speech (sort of like homeowners insurance – everyone had it) then we would rapidly evolve classes in making public speech, which would demonstrate how to witness (truth telling). (Heinlein suggested something of this order.) Now some speech advocates theft, and some does not. Some purports to convey truths, and some does not. This is essentially restoring the greek discipline of rhetoric in an age where media replicates faster than greek era human voices could quell. This is also much closer to anglo saxon law. Why is it that I an produce a ladder that subjects people to harm and am accountable, but if I advocate a political policy that causes millions of deaths, I am not accountable? (as usual, I am suggesting a common law (property rights), universal standing, and private insurance based solution to regulation, with fairly high confidence that the public, insurers and producers will seek practical means of solving problems without authoritarian intervention.)
[I]f one had to be insured to issue public speech (sort of like homeowners insurance – everyone had it) then we would rapidly evolve classes in making public speech, which would demonstrate how to witness (truth telling). (Heinlein suggested something of this order.) Now some speech advocates theft, and some does not. Some purports to convey truths, and some does not. This is essentially restoring the greek discipline of rhetoric in an age where media replicates faster than greek era human voices could quell. This is also much closer to anglo saxon law. Why is it that I an produce a ladder that subjects people to harm and am accountable, but if I advocate a political policy that causes millions of deaths, I am not accountable? (as usual, I am suggesting a common law (property rights), universal standing, and private insurance based solution to regulation, with fairly high confidence that the public, insurers and producers will seek practical means of solving problems without authoritarian intervention.)
WHY BLAME THE OTHER GUY, INSTEAD OF BLAMING YOURSELF?
The reason you are conquered is that you are weak enough to be. Why are you weak enough to be conquered? Fix what is wrong with your civilization, rather than criticize your attacker. Understand why you are weak enough to be attacked.
We failed because we are altruistic. Not entirely, but more than anyone else.
Our high trust has a down side.
We just experienced a century of it.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-27 16:33:00 UTC
Deeds, not words.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-27 15:21:00 UTC