Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • NOTES FROM THIS MORNING’S REVIEW OF CURRENT STATE 5-Literature 4-Religion 3-Phil

    NOTES FROM THIS MORNING’S REVIEW OF CURRENT STATE

    5-Literature

    4-Religion

    3-Philosophy (Moral Entrepreneurs)

    2-Intellectual History

    1-History

    0-Law

    1-Science

    —Curt

    Tautology(necessary),

    Proof(possible),

    Rational(potential),

    Literature(meaningful) —Curt

    We are all relying upon narratives that provide decidability for the purpose of pursuing allies in the achievement of a condition, not truth. We only rely upon a truthful narrative when it assists us attracting allies in the achievement of a condition. –Curt

    Shinto when we’re born,

    Confucian when we’re adolescent,

    Christian when we’re married,

    Buddhist when we die. — Japanese Saying

    Rationality – in that one consents to be persuaded – is a social virtue not a human faculty. Reason is a human faculty. Rationality is a moral virtue – a property of cooperation. — Rorty restated by Doolittle

    “It’s not a surprise that religion, democracy, and science, are in conflict: power.”–Rorty

    “Another sense of philosophy describes how various ideas fit together.” — Rorty. Well, I would say that philosophy consists of logic (necessity), criticism (science), integration(rationality), advocacy(moral literature), and imagining (fantasy literature). And that religion conflates advocacy, imagining, and Law (force). –Curt

    “if we take care of education and democratic freedom then truth will take care of itself”–Dewey. Well, it turns out that Dewey/Rorty are wrong. Just the opposite. – Curt

    Judaism is, like American pragmatism, a feminine philosophy, in that consequences to the commons are irrelevant. All that matters is the consequences to those collectively extant in the moment. — Curt

    Rorty makes the progressive error of the steady-state. We always fight the red queen. We have lost that under the temporary prosperity of industrialism. But the red queen has shifted just as crime has shifted. We compete against economies and resources and institutions, not against farming and territory and demographics. — Curt

    What objectively right vs objectively better = Survival of your gene pool. It is objectively right, and objectively better. — Curt

    Innovative < —————- > Defensive

    …. …. …. Communism (universalism) (impossible)

    …. …. Socialism (competitively impossible)

    …. Social Democracy (possible as long as competitive)

    Market Government (Trade) …. Anarchism (impossible)

    ….Classical-Liberalism, (

    …. ….Christian Monarchism

    …. …. ….Fascism (particularism)

    Communism

    …. (lower class – short term – consumption – r-selection )

    …. (mandatory consumption)

    …. (reproductive offense – distribution of assets )

    Market Government

    …. (middle class – medium term – production)

    …. (mandatory exchagne)

    …. (productive offense – market eschange of assets)

    Fascism

    …. (upper class – long term – preservation – K-selection)

    …. (mandatory production/contribution)

    …. (organizational offense – concentration of assets)

    We alter between these strategies as our prosperity allows.

    —Curt

    The west is deconflationary. we do not confuse methods of arguments, disciplines that make use of them, institutions that provide and manage them. We maintain a competition, and circumvent a monopoly.

    LIMITS: Law, legal jurisdiction – secular jurisdiction – a discovered science of dispute resolution.

    UTILITY: Trade – practical jurisdiction – a learned craft of pragmatism.

    IDEALS: Matters spiritual – are literary – and an imagined art of aspiration.

    Islam and Judaism are ‘simpler’ methods than western. simpler than Chinese. And suitable for a people less intelligent

    —Curt

    –“The collapse of the ottoman empire (Turks) allows the primitives (Salafis) to determine the authoritarian voice of Islam. Had the Turkish sultan maintained control of Islam, then it is possible that Islam would have reformed and the primitivism might have been suppressed as it was in other civilizations.”— Roger Scruton.

    “There is nothing that a democratic polity is accountable to but itself.”—Rorty But this is false. This says that the majority underclass under majoritarian monopoly rule is unaccountable to the consequences they force upon the middle and upper classes, and the genetic, territorial, normative, institutional, informational, and monumental capital of the civilization.—Curt Doolittle

    —“Truth isn’t correspondence with reality. Truth is just whatever it takes for people to obtain what they want.”–Rorty He is saying nothing matters. My question is why others have any reason or justification for not committing violence against those that oppose our preferences and interests. –Curt

    —“Conservatives are people who are aware of the fact that they’ve inherited something good, and want to conserve what is good. It’s much easier to destroy things than create them. It’s much easier to criticize existing things that are imperfect, than to construct things are better.”—Roger Scruton

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-15 15:37:00 UTC

  • SEVEN PREMISES CONTRARY TO HOPPE’S ARGUMENTATION ETHICS (important) People negot

    SEVEN PREMISES CONTRARY TO HOPPE’S ARGUMENTATION ETHICS

    (important)

    People negotiate. They argue only to negotiate. They argue truthfully only as a special case of arguing within negotiation. People do not pursue the thruth – the pursue their intersts, and pursue the truth only when it advances their interests. If people were not negotiating, they would have no reason to argue.

    Like much of Hoppe and Rothbard’s work, Hoppe engages in cherry picking(confirmation bias) for the purpose of misdirection(suggestion) to create a straw man (distraction), then uses overloading(extraordinary detail), to force the audience into reliance on introspection(abandoning reason) rather than relying upon praxeological enumeration of cases that fully account for the range of possible human actions and incentives.

    In the arts, we call this effect of this overloading ‘the suspension of disbelief’ – a positive technique. But the negative use of the technique for persuasive purposes we call ‘overloading’ – causing the abandonment of criticism by exceeding our ability to judge without relying upon.

    Here is the correction of Hoppe’s error:

    Premise 0.1 – Man is a rational actor, he chooses boycott, avoidance, negotiation, exchange, parasitism, theft, violence, and warfare as suits his interests. Thankfully, the benefits of cooperation outweigh the benefits of conflict in the majority of cases.

    Premise 0.2 – When negotiating, humans speak in avoidance, deception, signaling, negotiation, honesty, and truth-attempts, as suits their rational interest.

    Premise 0.3 – The majority of human speech consists of either avoidance, deception, signaling, or negotiation.

    Premise 0.4 – One of the tools humans can use in avoidance, deception, signaling, or negotiation is truth-attempts – if possessed of sufficient education, experience, and skill, one or more of the various degrees of argumentation: analogistic (religious, moral, historical), rational(reasonable, rational, logical), empirical (recorded, scientific, economic), or existential(operational + empirical + logical + fully accounted), depending upon his level of understanding.

    Premise 0.5 – Almost no human argument consists of truth claims, but instead consists of negotiating statements constructed from error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, and deceit. When truth-attempts are useful in the negotiation, then man will employ them. However, truth-attempts are a complex conceptual technology, and each of the technologies of argument: analogistic, rational, empirical, and existential – can be used even more easily for deception than they can for truth-discovery. To test against deception, each truth-technology requires testing by the next degree of truth technology – because greater precision and knowledge are required for each degree.

    Premise 0.6 – When humans resolve differences, we can resolve them according to who is the strongest, or by authoritarian command, or by tradition and norm, or by evolved rule, or by some logical or scientific process. The greater the degree of rule of law, the closer to logical and scientific process is necessary. The further from rule of law the more arbitrary discretion is necessary.

    Premise 0.7 – Man has evolved the vast corpus of legal doctrines, headmen, judges, governments and states as insurers of those legal doctrines, all of which are enforced by violence, precisely because man rarely if ever pursues truth instead of interest, and he does so only under constant threat of violence and constant competition from those with opposing interests. The only condition we find truth is even vaguely pursued is when property is external to the argument, and signaling for having the best argument most correspondent with reality, is the only reward.

    SUMMARY:

    Empirically speaking, in all civilizations, in all walks of life, humans almost never pursue the truth. Instead, they pursue their interests, and they resort to the high cost of truth only if (a) it is in their interest, and (b) they possess the skill to do so, and (c) under threat of ostracization, punishment, or death if they fail to.

    COMFORTING LIES THAT APPEAL TO COGNITIVE BIASES

    Left feminine, Libertine Adolescent, Right Masculine biases reflect each of our evolutionary strategies given our reproductive desirability and our social class. Each of the cosmopolitan lies was constructed to appeal to the cognitive baises: left-feminine, libertarian-adolescent, and conservative-masculine through the exact same application of that process that was used to spread the lie of scriptural monotheism: Verbal overloading of a suggestion, that appeals to a cognitive bias, overwhelming the available truth-testing technology.

    THE SOURCE OF LIBERTY.

    There is only one source of liberty: the universal, organized application of violence to force universal sovereignty. where under universal sovereignty there is no other method of cooperation than natural, judge-discovered, common, law providing a market for dispute resolution; the market for reproduction that we call marriage and family, the market for goods, services AND information, and the market for commons we call anglo-multi-house-government, and the market for polities we call small regional nation states. Because only markets tolerate sovereignty. All else is discretion, and discretion is the opposite of sovereignty.

    — Hoppe’s Premises —

    “- Premise 1: All truth-claims – all claims that a given proposition is true, false, indeterminate or un-decidable or that an argument is valid and complete or not – are raised, justified and decided upon in the course of an argumentation.

    – Premise 2: The truth of this proposition cannot be disputed without falling into contradiction, as any attempt to do so would itself have to come in the form of an argument. Hence, the “Apriori” of argumentation.

    – Premise 3: Argumentation is not free-floating sounds but a human action, i.e., a purposeful human activity employing physical means – a person’s body and various external things – in order to reach a specific end or goal: the attainment of agreement concerning the truth-value of a given proposition or argument.

    – Premise 4: While motivated by some initial disagreement, dispute or conflict concerning the validity of some truth-claim, every argumentation between a proponent and an opponent is itself a conflict-free – mutually agreed on, peaceful – form of interaction aimed at resolving the initial disagreement and reaching some mutually agreed-on answer as to the truth-value of a given proposition or argument.

    – Premise 5: The truth or validity of the norms or rules of action that make argumentation between a proponent and an opponent at all possible – the praxeological presuppositions of argumentation – cannot be argumentatively disputed without falling into a pragmatic or performative contradiction.

    – Premise 6: The praxeological presuppositions of argumentation, then, i.e., what makes argumentation as a specific form of truth-seeking activity possible, are twofold: a) each person must be entitled to exclusive control or ownership of his physical body (the very mean that he and only he can control directly, at will) so as to be able to act independently of one another and come to a conclusion on his own, i.e., autonomously; and b), for the same reason of mutually independent standing and autonomy, both proponent and opponent must be entitled to their respective prior possessions, i.e., the exclusive control of all other, external means of action appropriated indirectly by them prior to and independent of one another and prior to the on-set of their argumentation.

    Conclusion: Any argument to the contrary: that either the proponent or the opponent is not entitled to the exclusive ownership of his body and all prior possessions cannot be defended without falling into a pragmatic or performative contradiction. For by engaging in argumentation, both proponent and opponent demonstrate that they seek a peaceful, conflict-free resolution to whatever disagreement gave rise to their arguments. Yet to deny one person the right to self-ownership and prior possessions is to deny his autonomy and his autonomous standing in a trial of arguments. It affirms instead dependency and conflict, i.e., heteronomy, rather than conflict-free and autonomously reached agreement and is thus contrary to the very purpose of argumentation.”

    — Doolittle’s Criticisms —

    Hoppe’s thesis: Since I do not physically aggress against your body and your property while in engaging in ‘argument'(negotiation), then I demonstrate when in argument(negotiation), that non-aggression against life and property is required for cooperation – which I can restate as the criteria for ethical action.

    ISSUES

    If I am trying to deceive you, and I make no claim that what I say is true, then how can I engage in a performative contradiction?

    The only conditions under which performative contradiction matters is justification in court.

    If people seek to justify their wants(negotiate) in trade, not seek to speak truthfully(conduct scientific investigation), then they are rarely if ever engaged in argument(truth), and almost always enagaged in negotiation (not-truth)

    People engage in this spectrum actions:

    Avoidance, Violence, Threat, Deception, Negotiation, Argument, Insurance(gifts etc), Sacrifice (kin selection),

    People engage in i) argument over ‘goods'(common property), they ii) engage in negotiation of exchanges(several property), they engage in iii) threats to force transfers(possessions). But violence and deception are part of the argument, exchange or transfer, as much or more so than is any degree of truth.

    Only when they argue over commons (goods) within an existing contract for cooperation(ethics), do they make truth claims. In negotiation they engage in deceptions, and by threats they deny property exists, only that possessions exist.

    “…just talking, without any consequence of talking…”–hoppe

    He conflates purposeless speech with deceptive speech. This is a straw man argument since we do not claim to make truth claims.

    “…to be TRUE only for the parties involved in the..” – hoppe

    Argument(negotiation) requires a truth claim, negotiation and threat do not require truth claims – they eschew them. Continuing the straw man. We do not make truth claims.

    “….why should anyone pay attention to merely personal truths…”-hoppe

    (a) no one is claiming truth, (b) under threat of loss of possessions you possess the need to pay attention, unless the threat is inconsequential. Continuing the straw man.

    “…critics are engaging in a counter argument…”

    This is true. But then the critics (like me) are conduction an argument (truth inquiry), not a negotiation or a threat. That says only that we are seeking truth (attempting to produce a commons we refer to as the general rule of ethical action- the terms of the contract for cooperation).

    “…they engage in a performative contradiction…they say what they claim about argumentation is true…”

    Continuing the straw man. They make no truth claim. In fact they (we, I) deny that people engage in argument, and instead engage in threat(command), and negotiation(deception), and that only in rare cases do they engage in argument (truth claims).

    “….it is true for everyone capable of argumentation…”

    Except that we are not making the claim that people are engaged in argument, but threat, deception, and justification.

    “…argument…to resolve a conflict between rival truth claims…”

    Except that we are not enaging in arguments, or making truth claims when threatening or negotiating or justifying. We are merely seeking information that we can exploit through violence, payment, or persuasion (threat).

    “…argumentation implies one should accept the consequences of the outcome, otherwise why argue?…”

    We aren’t arguing. We’re negotiating.

    “…it would be contradictory for a judge in a trial to say…”

    Well this is the point. Argumentation ethics applies only in court where we justify our actions by correspondence with law. It says nothing about the origin and limits of the conditions from which we must deduce basic rules of cooperation (ethics).

    ARGUMENT IS A SPECIAL CASE OF COOPERATION NOT A GENERAL RULE

    Hoppe’s argument is a case of special pleading proposed as a general rule. it is just that this case of special pleading overloads the cogntivive biases of those people who self select for libertarianism.

    How could we test these hypotheses? Empirically. And without much effort I am more than confident that finding cases of argument by truth not under the threat of violence when property is in play, will be statistically irrelevant.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-13 13:00:00 UTC

  • ARGUMENT TODAY IS NOT VICTORIAN In Argument and Debate, there is a very great di

    ARGUMENT TODAY IS NOT VICTORIAN

    In Argument and Debate, there is a very great difference between victorian era and today: critical prosecution against falsehood and deceit is very different from cooperative exploration with the assumption of honesty.

    I know what I am doing and I know it is unpleasant, but it is precisely this assumption of honesty and integrity that has led to the failure to resist the pseudosciences that have created the current escalating conflict. So I view it just as immoral to leave undefended the intellectual commons as I do to leave physical danger un-answered within it.

    Our civilization has not been destroyed in both the ancient era and the present by our persistent wars that we wrongly rail against. But by the failure of philosophers in the early twentieth century to expand rule of law, and limit etiquette, to the expansion of both the scale of our cooperation under worldwide industrialism, and the expansion of the power of the voice of deceit under propaganda in media.

    We ceased competing largely militarily and moved to competing economically – and without our knowledge we now compete informationally. And our civilization could not survive authoritarian pseudoscience any more than it survived the first conquest by authoritarian mysticism.

    This is not recreation for me. It’s not personal fulfillment. It’s research into the methods by which we expand our rule of law, to defend the informational commons that has been the source of our second defeat.

    -Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-13 08:35:00 UTC

  • (in progress) (note to self) TESTIMONIALISM ALL OF MY WORK IS REDUCIBLE TO THIS

    (in progress) (note to self)

    TESTIMONIALISM ALL OF MY WORK IS REDUCIBLE TO THIS

    -The Six Warranties of Due Diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.

    -The inclusion of Moral Due Diligence: Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities that are productive, fully informed, warrantied and voluntary.

    -The inclusion of Full Accounting of Changes in Property In Toto(demonstrated property) in the consideration of Moral Due Diligence.

    -The Defense of the Informational Commons against the imposition of costs by use of universal standing in matters of the informational commons.

    Everything else is education

    THE REASON FOR WESTERN EXCEPTIONALISM: SOVEREIGNTY, TRUTH, AND MARKETS PRODUCE VELOCITY.

    1) Individual Sovereignty. (Not liberty from immoral rule, not freedom from immoral command, not positive freedom from nature’s constraints – but sovereignty. )

    2) Testimonial (performative) Truth: The Development of (unforgiving) Martial Epistemology (of the brotherhood of warriors) into a universal commons, and from that the discovery of objective Truth, and Debate, Reason, Greek ‘science’, Empirical Science, and now Testimonial Truth (‘complete science’).

    3) Cooperation at scale under sovereignty can only be achieved by the use of voluntary markets, and reciprocal insurance: a market for consumption(labor, craft, organization, decision making), a market for production(goods, services, information), a market for reproduction(marriage and family), a market for commons (territory, resources, built capital, information, norms, traditions, ‘laws’, and institutions.), a market for dispute resolution (natural, empirical, common, judge-discovered, law, decided by jury), a market for polities (different group competitive strategies accessible through voluntary association and disassociation).

    4) Just as only truth survives when we eliminate ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, prosperity survives when we first, collect in groups so that we reduce the opportunity cost of cooperation, and second when we eliminate the frictions of unpredictability in our attempts at cooperation increasing the velocity of cooperation and extending our plans and production cycles further into the future, where less change is required in the present to cause greater change in the increasingly distant future.

    5) A small, relatively poor group of people can use force of arms to create Soveriegn Rule (Aristocratic Egalitarianism), as an industry and as a profession – and it is the most profitable profession yet invented by man.

    6) By incrementally suppressing all unsovereign acts using natural, judge discovered, common law, as those unsovereign acts are discovered (the imposition of costs), then humans are increasingly forced out of parasitism and into production, with transfer within kin groups the limit of that legal reach. Kin insure kin.

    7) The unproductive are prohibited from reproduction. The problematic are hung. The excesses are eliminated by starvation, disease, and war. Thus incrementally reducing the costly lower classes that lack both ability and will to engage in productive labors.

    8) The enlightenment seizure of power by the middle class from the aristocracy using the equalizing power of guns, in the hands of the numerous and common man, destroyed (a) the multi-house government that served as a market for commons between the classes. (b) The ‘truth’ of the four or more classes as cooperating not competing. (c)

    TRUTH

    The problem of the second Great Deceit.

    Solving it through demand truth in public speech, prosecuting as fraud just as we prosecute all other frauds.

    The problem is creating legal due diligence criteria.

    Solving it through tests of due diligence in all possible dimensions

    Testimonialism provides a list of those due diligences.

    We already know most of those due diligences.

    But we add Morality and Full Accounting to the list.

    Morality requires productive, informed, warrantied voluntary transfers limited to externalities of the same criteria.

    Full Accounting requires that we enumerate the changes in state to all forms of capital (property in toto).

    LAW

    When we discover new law we write it using strict construction from the first principle of morality (above).

    We start with the intention of the newly discovered law (scope), and we continue with definitions(declarations), and processes(functions.)

    Law must be then constructed, operationally, and it must be fully calculable – essentially a programming language of law that is just as complete as are computable formulae.

    This creates a non-interpretable, but expandable, fully testable, legal system, open to continuous improvement and correction.

    To ensure the enforcement of this system, and to ensure constant correction of it, as it applies to the informational commons, this commons must be open to defense under universal standing.

    The same criteria applies to all contracts, including those involuntary contracts we call legislation and regulation.

    Meaning that any and all citizens can compete with legislators and regulators, and the judiciary to force truthful and moral operation of that industry that we call government, that produces that product and services we call ‘commons’. Or stated in the legal vernacular: the people must always possess juridical defense against law, legislation, regulation, and contract -without exception.

    MARKET FOR COMMONS

    The other significant advice that I’ve given consists in the methods of restoring the use of government as a market for commons between the classes by various means, all of which eliminate the monopoly production of commons under that worst of all possible tyrannies: democracy.

    ALL THE REST IS EXPLANATION

    Everything else I have written is to EDUCATE by explanation the causes of the principle of universal sovereignty and the market society that is the only solution to persistence of sovereignty, and why the west in both the modern and ancient worlds, was able to innovate so much faster than the rest, despite being a small, poor population on the edge of the bronze age.

    THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO UNDERSTAND

    But one does not need (as I do) to understand the entirety of why this solution is sufficient to restore the west to its strategy of sovereignty and by consequence markets for consumption, production, reproduction(family), commons(govt), population(countries), and leadership (monarchies). Nor does one need (as I do) to understand the entire history of why this is all so. One needs only understand that the solution is to evolve our law to match the increases in the industrialization of information distribution, so that any informational product of any kind enters the market for information regulated just as we regulate any other product or service: that it must be truthful.

    AND IT ISNT COMPLICATED

    Now, I do not have the faintest idea why any of that is hard to grasp.

    Nor do I understand why testimonialism is hard to grasp:

    1 – Identity: Categorical Consistency. I don’t see why we aren’t great at this already. (sensibility)

    2 – Logic: Internal Consistency – although when I say this I mean that logical consistency does not refer to ‘meaning’ but to existentially possible statements. There is nothing new here that isn’t largely in eprime and performative truth. (reason)

    3 – Empirical: External Consistency (Correspondence). I don’t have to teach the world about empiricism for goodness sakes. (reality)

    4 – Operational: Existential Consistency. This takes a bit of practice but again, it is easily solved by writing in eprime in first person voice, as a sequence of operations and observations. This is already done in the physical sciences. (human action)

    5 – Moral: Voluntary Consistency. All transfers consist exclusively of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities of the same criteria. The only novelty here is in full-accounting of property in toto. (cooperation)

    6 – Scope: Scope consistency. Consisting of (a) limits, (b) parsimony, and (c) full accounting. Where the only novelty here is a full accounting of property in toto. (scope)

    SURVIVAL VS UNDERSTANDING SEEMS COUNTER INTUITIVE

    What is counter-intuitive, that most people seem to have trouble grasping, is the difference between the false comforting certainty of justificationism, and the true but uncomfortable uncertainty of survival from criticism. We are taught to prove things. to get the right answer. But the universe does not work like that. Anything that is not false might be true. Law works by the same means: if there are criteria by which a thing is illegal (false) than that which survives those criteria is legal (true).

    TESTIMONIALISM MERELY INCREMENTALLY EXTENDS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF PROVIDING A WARRANTY OF DUE DILIGENCE AGAINST IGNORANCE, ERROR, BIAS, AND DECEIT

    So testimonialism extends the scientific method into social science, law, and politics. As long as you have done your due diligence as a producer of a good, a service, or information, then you have broken no natural law. If you produce a good, a service, or information, and have not done due diligence, and done no harm, then you have broken no natural law. But if you produce a good, a service, or information and someone claims harm, then you are liable for damages. And the problem you face, is that damages done by disinformation are extraordinarily hard to repair, compared to those done by goods and much harder to repair than those done by services.

    Testimonialism is reducible to the requirement that we test all dimensions that humans can possibly sense, perceive, and act against.

    WE ARE, OURSELVES, AN INSTRUMENT OF MEASUREMENT

    Why does that matter? Because with any testimony we are trying to create a description that through a process of reconstruction, the audience envisions that which you claim to have envisioned. So our bodies, senses, minds function as units of measure. Therefore reducing the world to descriptions that are subjectively testable by a jury is a test of your descriptions. We humans are the unit of measure because we are marginally indifferent – at least in groups – in what we can sense, perceive, understand, and sympathize with.

    Imagine you are looking at a scene, and describing it. And you are talking to someone who sees 100 scenes (or an infinite number for that matter), and he is trying to identify which one you’re describing, but you can’t hear him. He can only hear you.

    If he can correctly choose the one you’re describing your testimony is ‘truthful’.

    THE NECESSARY PART OF MY WORK IS ‘DONE’

    So I don’t believe that I have more work to do in explaining the central insights provided by my work. I may have much more EDUCATION to do. And I can create more educational content. But the central thesis of sovereignty > markets > truth > informational commons > strict construction > universal standing > market government with houses for each of the classes does not seem to be very hard to understand.

    YOU NEED TO USE YOUR VIOLENCE

    If you want to know the answer – I just gave it to you. You just need to withdraw from the state the deposit of your violence, and use that violence in every way possible to disrupt economy and infrastructure and rule until your demand for truth is met.

    Or that’s the amount of energy I have to put into this tonight. You don’t need to understand more than that in order to understand how to restore western civilization from the second great utopian deceit: cosmopolitanism: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Adorno and the many others of their ilk.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-11 09:44:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIAN ARGUMENT – FOR THE PROSECUTION Propertarianism argument functions a

    PROPERTARIAN ARGUMENT – FOR THE PROSECUTION

    Propertarianism argument functions analytically – as a criticism. Ergo propertarian argument functions prosecutorially. The assumption is that we will find fraud. Not because all men are evil and seeking to deceive (per se). But because all men are victims of genetically induced justification of our reproductive strategies via ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, and obscurantism.

    An argument is true and good as long as it is both not-false and non-parasitic. And we can only know if it is good and true if it is complete: fully accounted.

    We must meet all three criteria: True, Fully Accounted, and Good.

    But we only know if it is true fully accounted and good, through prosecution of the alternatives, not justification of the statements alone.

    Think of it this way: there are many roads to Rome. We only know the shortest road if we know the lengths of all the roads.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-11 08:09:00 UTC

  • Deceiving, negotiating, justifying, testifying, and criticizing are different ac

    Deceiving, negotiating, justifying, testifying, and criticizing are different activities. Right?

    When we engage in negotiating with enemies, negotiating with customers, with family, with judge and jury, with fellow scientists are we using the same truth criteria?

    We live lives of negotiation not argument, persuasion not truth, excuse-making not survival from criticism.

    But in the end what does argumentative epistemology tell us about property?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-09 21:22:00 UTC

  • A judge may exercise introspection and discretion in the ascertainment of the cr

    A judge may exercise introspection and discretion in the ascertainment of the credibility (honestly and truthfulness) of the individuals and the evidence. This is a form of sympathetic testing.

    What he may not do is exercise introspection and discretion in the decidability of the law.

    Rule of law = the elimination of discretion in matters of decidability.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-08 11:21:00 UTC

  • It’s not that the best must rule, it’s that the worst must not.

    Just as falsification tells us what may be true by that which we cannot make false; and proofs tell us what is not false but not what is true; and the law tells us now what we must do, but only what we must not do; and evolution tells us only what fails, not what succeeds, it is not important that the best people lead, as much as it is important that the worst do not. For this reason we must limit access to power to those least likely to lead poorly. How do we know? Demonstrated character in familial, entrepreneurial, political, and military excellence over multiple generations. And the elimination of consideration of those who fail the test of character in familial, entrepreneurial, and military excellence across multiple generations.

    Nobility is most frequently demonstrated by intergenerational excellence. For those who cannot master their passions enough for good breeding, good rearing, good production, and good defense, have demonstrated by their actions that they and their families are unsuitable for leadership. Note that survival from the opinions of others in schooling, academy, politics and church, tell us nothing about an individual other than his ability remember and to obey, while engaging in various forms of politicking and deceit. Only family, commercial, and military experience tell us about the capacity of an individual to lead.

  • It’s not that the best must rule, it’s that the worst must not.

    Just as falsification tells us what may be true by that which we cannot make false; and proofs tell us what is not false but not what is true; and the law tells us now what we must do, but only what we must not do; and evolution tells us only what fails, not what succeeds, it is not important that the best people lead, as much as it is important that the worst do not. For this reason we must limit access to power to those least likely to lead poorly. How do we know? Demonstrated character in familial, entrepreneurial, political, and military excellence over multiple generations. And the elimination of consideration of those who fail the test of character in familial, entrepreneurial, and military excellence across multiple generations.

    Nobility is most frequently demonstrated by intergenerational excellence. For those who cannot master their passions enough for good breeding, good rearing, good production, and good defense, have demonstrated by their actions that they and their families are unsuitable for leadership. Note that survival from the opinions of others in schooling, academy, politics and church, tell us nothing about an individual other than his ability remember and to obey, while engaging in various forms of politicking and deceit. Only family, commercial, and military experience tell us about the capacity of an individual to lead.

  • The Fallacy of Libertarian ‘Principles’.

    ( recorded here ) This is such a great question. And I can answer it from several or all points of view.

    • First: any argument to principle is not argument to causality and can be generally interpreted as an attempt at deceit by the use of half truths in order to cause the individual to rely on intuition and therefore be the victim of suggestion.
    • Second: the full sentence would be that man acts in his rational self interest at all times given his available information and his available means of understanding.
    • Third: mises epistemology is a derivation of the kantian fallacy. Because while we can use free association to construct hypotheses, in the form of deduction, induction, and abduction (guessing), we cannot claim these to be truth propositions like we can in geometry, ( nor can we in geometry at scale either) because the information in reality is more causally dense than the ideal world of perfect imaginary mathematical categories. So for truth propositions we must ensure to perform due diligence that our discovery of a free association remains a truth candidate.
      This is what the scientific method accomplished: due diligence against falsehood. That is all. And our success arises from eliminating many errors so that our free associations are increasingly superior.

    What does this mean? It means that economic observations remain empirical – beyond direct perception. But that we must be able to explain any empirical observation as a sequence of subjectively testable voluntary operations in order for it to be a truth candidate. So Mises had it backward. All sciences require empirical observation to capture imperceptible phenomenon, but all truth claims must be warranted against error bias wishful thinking, suggestion and error, by acts of due diligence. The test of existential possibility and objective morality is performed praxeologically: by subjectively testing the sequence of operations necessary to produce the empirically observed phenomenon. I could go on at length here but this should be enough. IN CLOSING: It is obvious to me that just as anglos used martial empiricism and contractualism in their enlightenment. And just as Germans used hierarchical duty and rationalism as a restatement of Germanic Christianity. The Jews used the authoritarianism of Jewish law as a reformation of their religion. We can see mises like Freud, Marx, and Boaz as attempting to create an authoritarian pseudoscience using half truth and suggestion because Jewish law and religion is constructed by this method. My rather uncomfortable observation is that this technique like Jewish ghetto financing, is a pattern under which suggestion can be use to use temporal language to create seductive moral hazards from which they and profit. That mises had like Rothbard adopted this strategy metaphysically and involuntarily is obvious. Both men, like Marx, went to their graves knowing they were wrong but not knowing yet what assumptions in their cultural heritage caused them to err.