OVERVIEW OF PROPERTARIANISM’S MAIN THEMES Quick Note Turned into a Post. If you watch (1) the intertemporal division of perception, (2) the intercultural division of perception (circumpolar people), and (3) listen to this podcast (civilizational strategies); And if you catch that consistently across the personal, interpersonal, national, and civilizational strategies, that I CONSISTENTLY try to draw your attention to the three possible means of governance (coercion): religion/gossp/ostracization, trade/remuneration, and law/order/violence, you will begin to see the pattern that I work with that is VERY DIFFERENT from the idealism of ‘equality’ or even near equality. And if you then grasp that all human intuition, mind, emotion, reason, exists for the simple purpose of acquisition. And our intuitions vary only be reproductive strategy(gender) and our desirability(class). And that our emotional reward system is nothing more than evidence of changes in the state of property. And that we act to acquire property in toto. And that we negotiate for acquiring what we desire to fulfill our strategy. And that we signal by a thousand means in order to improve our negotiating position. And if you are enough of a philosopher to grasp that I divide categories of argument into the equivalent of increasingly articulate mathematical disciplines. (see my hierarchies of argument) – and we use them to honestly, dishonestly, wishfully, foolishly, and rarely truthfully, use them to negotiate with one another. And if you then you bring in the various dimensions by which I ask we test propositions (testimonialism’s six dimensional tests of due diligence necessary for warranty of propositions), And that the only way we make use of information across all our perceptions, is when we cooperate (Trade) voluntarily. And then that we can ‘calculate’ together fastest, most competitively, if we make use of (1)natural, judge-discovered, common law, jury, (2) a market for reproduction (marriage and family), (3) a market for the production of good and services in support of the market for reproduction, (4) and a market for the production of commons. And that we have domesticated mankind through incremental suppression of parasitism thereby enforcing production. And that we have only now to expand our suppression of parasitism to counter the development of media, so that we prevent propaganda and deceit in every walk of life. Then you have social science as I describe it in Propertarianism. (Natural Law), and the solutions to the majority of current problems. Stop lying, stop parasitism, and stop involuntary association, and that’s what it takes. My next series of thought will be criticisms of the attempt to preserve the monopoly of territory on the continent by the federal government. And I will continue to work on religion while I do that.
Theme: Truth
-
Spectrum: Signals of Belief Claims
THE SPECTRUM OF SIGNALS OF BELIEF CLAIMS. We’ve been discussing this in my corner of the universe, and I tend to work with the following terminological sequence: Faith = recognition that you’re position is indefensible, but you report that you hold some position. Belief = a ‘signal’ in the report that you might decide in favor of the position were it of no cost to you, but that you aren’t accountable for the truth or falsehood of it. Know = that you are not signaling, but with present knowledge, will defend your claim that you will decide in favor of the position, even if it costs you minor reputation for defending it. Promise = that you are willing to commit status and reputation to defend the assertion that you will choose in favor of the position. Warranty = that you are willing to commit materially to defend the assertion that you will choose in favor of the position. Demonstrate = that you have chosen in favor of the position. We have a lot of evidence that says this hierarchy of costs reflects the ‘put’ that an individual is making on the proposition at hand. TYING TO EARLIER POST ON THE PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY as reducible to word games that attempt to escape accountability. https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10154464857972264 Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute
-
Spectrum: Signals of Belief Claims
THE SPECTRUM OF SIGNALS OF BELIEF CLAIMS. We’ve been discussing this in my corner of the universe, and I tend to work with the following terminological sequence: Faith = recognition that you’re position is indefensible, but you report that you hold some position. Belief = a ‘signal’ in the report that you might decide in favor of the position were it of no cost to you, but that you aren’t accountable for the truth or falsehood of it. Know = that you are not signaling, but with present knowledge, will defend your claim that you will decide in favor of the position, even if it costs you minor reputation for defending it. Promise = that you are willing to commit status and reputation to defend the assertion that you will choose in favor of the position. Warranty = that you are willing to commit materially to defend the assertion that you will choose in favor of the position. Demonstrate = that you have chosen in favor of the position. We have a lot of evidence that says this hierarchy of costs reflects the ‘put’ that an individual is making on the proposition at hand. TYING TO EARLIER POST ON THE PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY as reducible to word games that attempt to escape accountability. https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10154464857972264 Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute
-
Tips On Writing Propertarian Arguments
USE ACTIVE VOICE 1) Learn one ‘aggressive’ or ‘honest’ technique: “Active Voice not Passive Voice” ‘John threw the ball’ not ‘the ball was thrown by john’. Read “passive voice” on the internet. This is where you’re having trouble with operational language. USE FINANCIAL AND CRIMINAL, NOT EXPERIENTIAL AND MORAL TERMINOLOGY 2) make sure any MORAL term you use is converted into an economic or financial term showing not abridgment of your interpretation of the moral contract, but of objective theft independent of subjectively biased moral judgements SO THIS A cowardly man imposes costs upon kin and kith to the extent of being beyond redemption. SHOULD BE THIS A cowardly man imposes costs upon kin and kith to the extent of being beyond restitution. ANOTHER EXAMPLE “embodying” is yet another symbolism not an objective declaration or observation. instead: “demonstrating”, or possibly in this paragraph “forcing others to protect and produce for him…” CAUSES OF OUR PASSIVE VOICE We grow up with “Polite Speech” and polite speech asks us to avoid accusatory descriptions. This produces passive voice. We grow up with the habit of talking about the object (thing affected) rather than the subject (thing acting). This produces passive voice. John did this which caused these increases or decreases in those forms of capital, demonstrating that he is a thief or investor. YOU ARE MAKING FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC TRANSACTIONS INSTEAD OF MORAL JUDGEMENTS Propertarian arguments represent A LEDGER of TRANSACTIONS against property. Think of your arguments as software that’s narrating a set of accounting entries, and rendering a judgment of profit or loss. SUMMARY Just stick with the idea of subject acted on object, which caused this result, thereby producing a transaction against property resulting in a profit or loss. CLOSING: OUR PURPOSE Our purpose is to change from the MORAL AND MONOPOLY frame of decision making on common goods, to the SCIENTIFIC AND MARKET frame of decision on common goods. So we are revolutionizing the commons by asking “We have different objectives, but we can still cooperate if we trade. so why wont you be honest with me and trade? If you will trade, then I will trade. But if you will not trade and you want to engage in fraud or theft or violence, then I will remain moral, and not engage in theft, or fraud, but I WILL engage in violence, so that in the future you engage in truth and trade, or that you are dead, so you cannot commit fraud and theft.” This is the MORAL argument we put forward in propertarianism. “Why won’t you trade with me? If you will not trade with me then you may boycott trade with me – I will understand. But if you try to commit fraud and theft, directly or indirectly, as an individual or a group of any size, then I and other moral men, will not engage in theft and fraud, but we will engage in violence to end, perform restitution for, and punish, – and if necessary kill – those who engage in fraud and theft rather than trade or boycott.”
-
Tips On Writing Propertarian Arguments
USE ACTIVE VOICE 1) Learn one ‘aggressive’ or ‘honest’ technique: “Active Voice not Passive Voice” ‘John threw the ball’ not ‘the ball was thrown by john’. Read “passive voice” on the internet. This is where you’re having trouble with operational language. USE FINANCIAL AND CRIMINAL, NOT EXPERIENTIAL AND MORAL TERMINOLOGY 2) make sure any MORAL term you use is converted into an economic or financial term showing not abridgment of your interpretation of the moral contract, but of objective theft independent of subjectively biased moral judgements SO THIS A cowardly man imposes costs upon kin and kith to the extent of being beyond redemption. SHOULD BE THIS A cowardly man imposes costs upon kin and kith to the extent of being beyond restitution. ANOTHER EXAMPLE “embodying” is yet another symbolism not an objective declaration or observation. instead: “demonstrating”, or possibly in this paragraph “forcing others to protect and produce for him…” CAUSES OF OUR PASSIVE VOICE We grow up with “Polite Speech” and polite speech asks us to avoid accusatory descriptions. This produces passive voice. We grow up with the habit of talking about the object (thing affected) rather than the subject (thing acting). This produces passive voice. John did this which caused these increases or decreases in those forms of capital, demonstrating that he is a thief or investor. YOU ARE MAKING FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC TRANSACTIONS INSTEAD OF MORAL JUDGEMENTS Propertarian arguments represent A LEDGER of TRANSACTIONS against property. Think of your arguments as software that’s narrating a set of accounting entries, and rendering a judgment of profit or loss. SUMMARY Just stick with the idea of subject acted on object, which caused this result, thereby producing a transaction against property resulting in a profit or loss. CLOSING: OUR PURPOSE Our purpose is to change from the MORAL AND MONOPOLY frame of decision making on common goods, to the SCIENTIFIC AND MARKET frame of decision on common goods. So we are revolutionizing the commons by asking “We have different objectives, but we can still cooperate if we trade. so why wont you be honest with me and trade? If you will trade, then I will trade. But if you will not trade and you want to engage in fraud or theft or violence, then I will remain moral, and not engage in theft, or fraud, but I WILL engage in violence, so that in the future you engage in truth and trade, or that you are dead, so you cannot commit fraud and theft.” This is the MORAL argument we put forward in propertarianism. “Why won’t you trade with me? If you will not trade with me then you may boycott trade with me – I will understand. But if you try to commit fraud and theft, directly or indirectly, as an individual or a group of any size, then I and other moral men, will not engage in theft and fraud, but we will engage in violence to end, perform restitution for, and punish, – and if necessary kill – those who engage in fraud and theft rather than trade or boycott.”
-
Poetry and Rhyme As Institutions of Normative Law
Aug 24, 2016 11:41am(interesting idea) There is a reason why we want to restore BOTH truthfulness AND Poetry with Rhyme: Just as our ancient ancestors chose our intellectual (druidic / historian) leadership by their abilities to remember, our more recent intellectual leadership was sorted out by their use of poetry and meter. So if we speak testimonially, in rhyme and meter, we will ‘sort’ by speech as did our historical and prehistorical ancestors. And like our ancestors these words, in rhyme and verse, truth to the core, will work their way into the commons vernacular as normative law. ( I will work more on this but I seem to have solved the problem of both truthful speech, and art, poetry, and literature that troubled me so seriously in the early days.)
-
Poetry and Rhyme As Institutions of Normative Law
Aug 24, 2016 11:41am(interesting idea) There is a reason why we want to restore BOTH truthfulness AND Poetry with Rhyme: Just as our ancient ancestors chose our intellectual (druidic / historian) leadership by their abilities to remember, our more recent intellectual leadership was sorted out by their use of poetry and meter. So if we speak testimonially, in rhyme and meter, we will ‘sort’ by speech as did our historical and prehistorical ancestors. And like our ancestors these words, in rhyme and verse, truth to the core, will work their way into the commons vernacular as normative law. ( I will work more on this but I seem to have solved the problem of both truthful speech, and art, poetry, and literature that troubled me so seriously in the early days.)
-
Moral Language As Attempted Fraud?
Aug 24, 2016 6:04pm
—“CURT. YOU DON”T KNOW WHAT HUMAN DIGNITY MEANS? SAY IT ISN”T SO!!!!”—
(Hmmm…. I don’t know what human dignity means, but I know what life, body, movement, property, and contract mean. As far as I know, one of the central failings of Islam is the requirement for respect without having yet earned it by demonstrating it. Ergo, natural law, using common, judge-discovered law, under rule of law(universal application), and possessing universal standing produce all ends I know of. And duty and respect are not positive rights – they cannot be. They are earned rights, like all other: by reciprocity. )I just understand that moral language, like religious language it evolved from, is usually just another polite way of conducting fraud, so I try to avoid the language of fraud, and use the language in which its most difficult to engage in fraud and deceit: scientific (truthful). Law evolved as those rules that prevent retaliation spirals by forcible standardization of crime and punishment (an extension of weights and measures) so that the king’s peace, and the people’s market prosperity (and therefore taxation) can expand. Natural rights evolved as those that preserve the church’s peace, and require, the governments to standardize both law and policy. Human rights evolved out of the wars of Europe, where the purpose was to force states to maintain their borders, and seek prosperity in the interests of their people, rather than at the expense of their neighbors. Now, just like the mystics told us comforting lies, and the church told us comforting lies, and philosophers search for comforting lies, the academy replaces the church, selling diplomas instead of indulgences by telling us comforting lies, and the politicians under the deceit of fiat credit and the merits of democracy tell us comforting lies. This is because the truth is often unpleasant. America is ‘great’ because we conquered and sell off a continent every year to offspring and immigrants the same way that china uses fiat credit to move people from its poor hinterlands in the hope of creating a more productive economy from which taxation can be extracted by the state and profits extracted by the oligarchies. Just as the Russians did. We used this excess profit from selling off land to first displace Europe from the hemisphere, then once the European civil war began between the Atlantics and the continental (germans, eastern Europeans, and Russians), we used our wealth to defeat them, and Today our economy like that of Canada is not wealthy because of our virtues, but because we have the greatest asset that we can sell off to the world: housing, adequate rule of law, and the Ponzi scheme that such multiple generations create by doing so under fiat credit (hopefully inflated away fast enough that the illusion persists.) This military that we have seems expensive until we understand that since Nixon it has been paid for by demand for dollars used to buy oil. And the rest of the world understands this which is why Russia Iran and to a lesser degree china desire to control the archaic and anachronistic Muslim world: because most of the worlds oil exists between the Saudi peninsula and the arctic northeast of Moscow. If they can create an alternative currency backed by oil they can displace America and the dollar as the country or countries or block that can issue world fiat credit for at least the next century, and at the same time make the American military which polices the world system of finance and trade, impossible to pay for, and end western expansion of democratic secular humanism, and the imposition of the aristocratic model on familial and state-corporate civilizations that require central management because of low trust familial norms and traditions and institutions. (Hence the Saudi attempt to exit the oil business and transition into a financial rather than oil power.) Now I don’t hope to do anything by producing this illustrative narrative other than to state that it is silly people, naive people, ignorant people, who take any position that morality is other than an ingroup method of argument for the pooling of opportunity costs for limited gains. It is just as foolish to apply the economics of the family, to that of the firm, to that of the nation, to that of the world, since they operate on opposing laws of nature – just as it is foolish to apply Newtonian physics and euclidian geometry to the universe that works by its antithesis in quantum mechanics and post-euclidian geometry. Moral statements if not false are equivalent to the promise that your small investment will produce aggregate returns for all investors, that are multiples of the upfront cost, despite the risk. To say otherwise is an attempt to conduct the foolish application of a local technology to a scale in which it no longer applies OR, an attempt to conduct a fraud in order to obtain unearned returns at other’s expense, or any other variation on such frauds. Advocates of Human rights (which are ony natural and negative rights plus half a dozen later positive ambitions made as nods to then-communist states in order to obtain their consent), use moral language to make a ‘pitch’ but the answer is that unless we and our governments refrain from parasitism, there can be no peace and prosperity among men, nor dividends from production that produce the desired multiples on our investments in the commons, nor the taxes to create those commons. The chief difference between civilizations at this point is merely trust – who talks religiously, who talks morally, who talks legislatively, and who talks scientifically. The more truth that one relies upon the less friction exists in a society and the more productivity it releases without resistance from parasitism. I hope that is enough uncomfortable truth to circumvent the mythology we manufacture for consumption by the common people lie folk music, television serials, blockbuster movies, liberal arts classes and intellectual propaganda. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Moral Language As Attempted Fraud?
Aug 24, 2016 6:04pm
—“CURT. YOU DON”T KNOW WHAT HUMAN DIGNITY MEANS? SAY IT ISN”T SO!!!!”—
(Hmmm…. I don’t know what human dignity means, but I know what life, body, movement, property, and contract mean. As far as I know, one of the central failings of Islam is the requirement for respect without having yet earned it by demonstrating it. Ergo, natural law, using common, judge-discovered law, under rule of law(universal application), and possessing universal standing produce all ends I know of. And duty and respect are not positive rights – they cannot be. They are earned rights, like all other: by reciprocity. )I just understand that moral language, like religious language it evolved from, is usually just another polite way of conducting fraud, so I try to avoid the language of fraud, and use the language in which its most difficult to engage in fraud and deceit: scientific (truthful). Law evolved as those rules that prevent retaliation spirals by forcible standardization of crime and punishment (an extension of weights and measures) so that the king’s peace, and the people’s market prosperity (and therefore taxation) can expand. Natural rights evolved as those that preserve the church’s peace, and require, the governments to standardize both law and policy. Human rights evolved out of the wars of Europe, where the purpose was to force states to maintain their borders, and seek prosperity in the interests of their people, rather than at the expense of their neighbors. Now, just like the mystics told us comforting lies, and the church told us comforting lies, and philosophers search for comforting lies, the academy replaces the church, selling diplomas instead of indulgences by telling us comforting lies, and the politicians under the deceit of fiat credit and the merits of democracy tell us comforting lies. This is because the truth is often unpleasant. America is ‘great’ because we conquered and sell off a continent every year to offspring and immigrants the same way that china uses fiat credit to move people from its poor hinterlands in the hope of creating a more productive economy from which taxation can be extracted by the state and profits extracted by the oligarchies. Just as the Russians did. We used this excess profit from selling off land to first displace Europe from the hemisphere, then once the European civil war began between the Atlantics and the continental (germans, eastern Europeans, and Russians), we used our wealth to defeat them, and Today our economy like that of Canada is not wealthy because of our virtues, but because we have the greatest asset that we can sell off to the world: housing, adequate rule of law, and the Ponzi scheme that such multiple generations create by doing so under fiat credit (hopefully inflated away fast enough that the illusion persists.) This military that we have seems expensive until we understand that since Nixon it has been paid for by demand for dollars used to buy oil. And the rest of the world understands this which is why Russia Iran and to a lesser degree china desire to control the archaic and anachronistic Muslim world: because most of the worlds oil exists between the Saudi peninsula and the arctic northeast of Moscow. If they can create an alternative currency backed by oil they can displace America and the dollar as the country or countries or block that can issue world fiat credit for at least the next century, and at the same time make the American military which polices the world system of finance and trade, impossible to pay for, and end western expansion of democratic secular humanism, and the imposition of the aristocratic model on familial and state-corporate civilizations that require central management because of low trust familial norms and traditions and institutions. (Hence the Saudi attempt to exit the oil business and transition into a financial rather than oil power.) Now I don’t hope to do anything by producing this illustrative narrative other than to state that it is silly people, naive people, ignorant people, who take any position that morality is other than an ingroup method of argument for the pooling of opportunity costs for limited gains. It is just as foolish to apply the economics of the family, to that of the firm, to that of the nation, to that of the world, since they operate on opposing laws of nature – just as it is foolish to apply Newtonian physics and euclidian geometry to the universe that works by its antithesis in quantum mechanics and post-euclidian geometry. Moral statements if not false are equivalent to the promise that your small investment will produce aggregate returns for all investors, that are multiples of the upfront cost, despite the risk. To say otherwise is an attempt to conduct the foolish application of a local technology to a scale in which it no longer applies OR, an attempt to conduct a fraud in order to obtain unearned returns at other’s expense, or any other variation on such frauds. Advocates of Human rights (which are ony natural and negative rights plus half a dozen later positive ambitions made as nods to then-communist states in order to obtain their consent), use moral language to make a ‘pitch’ but the answer is that unless we and our governments refrain from parasitism, there can be no peace and prosperity among men, nor dividends from production that produce the desired multiples on our investments in the commons, nor the taxes to create those commons. The chief difference between civilizations at this point is merely trust – who talks religiously, who talks morally, who talks legislatively, and who talks scientifically. The more truth that one relies upon the less friction exists in a society and the more productivity it releases without resistance from parasitism. I hope that is enough uncomfortable truth to circumvent the mythology we manufacture for consumption by the common people lie folk music, television serials, blockbuster movies, liberal arts classes and intellectual propaganda. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Belief is Quantifiable, But Justification Isn’t
IS BELIEF QUANTIFIABLE? YES BUT JUSTIFICATION ISN”T. Belief is already quantifiable by the degree of risk you are willing to take to demonstrate it. It’s not justifiable, but it’s measurable. In most cases, belief is indistinguishable from self-signaling, and other-signalling, and signal vs risk explains the difference between reported belief, and demonstrated belief. In other words, any use of the word ‘belief’ epistemically is either suspect or outright false, unless (like many conveniences) it’s short for “as far as I know”, and not “I am justified in my claim”. THE GRAMMAR OF HEDGING (DETACHMENT)- I think I understand / I believe I understand / but it’s nt something I’d risk with my current understanding.
- I can understand it but I don’t know if it’s possible. / I believe I understand but don’t know if it’s possible / and we shouldn’t do it if it’s costly.
- As far as I know, it’s possible. / I believe its possible / hard to know if it’s possible/ we can try it if it’s not costly.
- As far as I know, it’s likely or probable / I believe it’s likely / we might be able to do it / we can try to do it if it’s not too costly.
- As far as I know, it’s pretty common. / I believe it’s pretty common / we probably can do this / we probably should do this.
- As far as I know it’s hard to imagine otherwise. / I believe it’s pretty certain./ We should do this / we must do this.