Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • “Some people will never learn anything, … because they understand everything t

    —“Some people will never learn anything, … because they understand everything too soon.”—Alexander Pope

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-11 09:59:00 UTC

  • CHOMSKY’S METAPHYSICAL FALLACY (Interesting post on understanding Chomsky via an

    CHOMSKY’S METAPHYSICAL FALLACY

    (Interesting post on understanding Chomsky via anglo vs jewish metaphysical assumptions)

    You know, at least Chomsky, unlike most lefties is well read. Or, rather, he’s well enough read that he at least makes partially rational arguments. But once you understand that his underlying metaphysical desire (or maybe assumption) is a cooperative world in which we are all shepherds of goats, sheep, merchandise, and information (information, myth, gossip, lies), roaming a desert, steppe, or ocean, paying no costs of landholding, and in particular no normative costs of landholding – instead of landholding farmers and capital producers that must constantly pay the high costs and normative costs of land holding – you see right through every single statement he makes as just another poor dimwitted fool indoctrinated into the nonsense metaphysics of religious ‘belief’. I mean, Jewish and Muslim cults are fascinating because they place a tragic and false conformity on their peoples: in the case of jews they are both conquered, diasporic, persecuted, because they do not grasp the central tenet of their faith: that they could not hold judea because they failed to transform from slaves, shepherds, and traders to land holders – because their ethic lacks the mandate that they pay the high cost of norms. They do not live in a world where the steppe, desert, sea, air, or even information system is ‘un owned’. So not only is their faith predicated on a lie (mysticism) but it is predicated on a suicidal falsehood: that they can parasitically exist off land holders who will eventually persecute them for their parasitism, and that they accumulate wealth merely by circumventing those real and normative costs, and indoctrinate themselves into land- holding. instead, they maintain group cohesion by threat of ostracization from internal insurance and advocacy, and the wealth effect of parasitic free riding on land-holders and land holder ethics.

    Well, now lets flip it around and see what errors we Anglos engage in – because it’s not dissimilar, just from the opposite end of the spectrum of land-holding vs migratory labor: an island fortress people, defended like Crete’s Mycenaean civilization by an accomplished navy. Or america, like Rome, entirely dependent for its culture on Athens(Britain) and Sparta(german), exhausting itself with conquest in pursuit of commercial wealth. Anglos live under the illusion that the aristocracy of everyone is either possible or desirable, despite the fact that the reason that the island of Britain developed a near-aristocracy of everyone, was through thousands of years of genetic pacification of the underclasses – leaving only the martial middle and working class, and the rotating upper middle classes alive (as is true throughout most of the hanjal/hanseatic civilization we fail to distinguish from its Mediterranean cousin. But which aside from being christian differs vastly in myths and norms. And then again, that Hanjal/Hansa civilization varies less from its Celtic civilization that was destroyed by the roman conquest of Europe(“Celtica”.)

    Now, look at how desperate the academy and state are to seek status by perpetuating the neo-puritan mythos…

    I mean, government is a ‘bad’ because it allows twisted people the power to do twisted things, for reasons that they don’t understand, but are always reducible to status seeking self interest.

    The Age of Political Empowerment (the Enlightenment era) has been every bit a catastrophe in politics, as the age of technology (the enlightenment) has been a success.

    We cannot revert to the past, we can only complete the transition and remove the folly of will from the state.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-10 07:48:00 UTC

  • KANT’S MONOPOLISM VS PROPERTARIANISM MARKET-“ISM” Kant wasn’t quite right. Prope

    KANT’S MONOPOLISM VS PROPERTARIANISM MARKET-“ISM”

    Kant wasn’t quite right. Propertarianism explains why. It’s not that we fail to perceive the world accurately. We do. In fact, we perceive all of it that we can act upon – which makes evolutionary sense really. Instead, it’s that we VALUE our perceptions differently. As a monotheist and monopolist, Kant did not understand the division of perception, cognition, knowledge and labor, nor did he understand it’s cause and value. He did not (as 20th century philosophers did not) understand the moral blindness caused by this difference in values. Nor the difference in moral biases as reproductive strategy. Nor did he understand that just as in the market, the information from voluntary exchanges accumulates in prices, that through cooperation across the moral spectrum we gain information necessary for the choice of construction and maintenance of commons. I despise Kant for giving the world a replacement for biblical authority. But thankfully we are no longer bound by the fallacies of monotheism, christianity, monopoly government, nor economic ignorance. And we can now construct governments as a market for commons suitable for complexity and scale beyond our perception, rather than as a monopoly producer of commons limited by our perceptions.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-09 05:45:00 UTC

  • THE VALUE OF STUDYING PHILOSOPHY (from elsewhere)(via stephen hicks) Only two re

    THE VALUE OF STUDYING PHILOSOPHY

    (from elsewhere)(via stephen hicks)

    Only two regrets I have in life. First was not choosing a degree in philosophy despite my fascination with it – although my study of art and art history has framed my personality and life.

    I can attest personally that the study of certain philosophy dramatically improves your ability in the work force.

    It’s a lot like living life as Methuselah. You have all this accumulated wisdom of all these smart folks, and you don’t have to so much learn the hard way as you go along, as work to gather useful information with which to apply that accumulated wisdom. It’s so much easier.

    1) Intro-Micro/Macro Economics, History, Philosophy, Grammar, Rhetoric, Art (aesthetics).

    Combine that series with ANY one of the technical disciplines (learn how to extend your perception with logical instrumentation):

    2) Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Accounting, Finance, Programming, Mathematics, Law, Econometrics.

    We should teach western fairy tales, myths and legends, literature and history throughout our youth. If you enter the world literate, with exposure to moral philosophy, grammar and rhetoric, classes on math through geometry, newtonian physics, basic checkbook accounting, money, banking, credit and interest, basics of consumer purchase/sale and contract, and most importantly, classes on cooperation(ethics), friendship, and marriage. then you are armed for daily life. We focus too heavily on trying to make everyone a member of the upper middle class via mastery of abstractions. But those of us with those abilities will succeed no matter what. and instead, we create chaos in our civilization by both destroying the famly as the source of wisdom and education on life matters, sending unsophisticated people entirely unready into a world managed by law, economics, finance credit and interest. We screw over our lower and middle classes with the folly of good intentions and false promises.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-06 06:23:00 UTC

  • The discipline of thinking is a lot like professional sports: the very few peopl

    The discipline of thinking is a lot like professional sports: the very few people at the margins make all the difference. But you gotta have a team to work with and spectators to make it possible.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-06 06:19:00 UTC

  • (Stomping on Reddit Bunnies is really not worth my time, but sometimes we have t

    (Stomping on Reddit Bunnies is really not worth my time, but sometimes we have to pay the high cost of maintaining a sanitary debate environment.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-04 14:43:00 UTC

  • Q&A: Curt, Where is a Virtue Ethics?

    Q&A: CURT, WHAT ABOUT INSPIRATION? WHERE IS VIRTUE? [W]ell, that is deceptively complex question. The problem of my (our) era, is the accumulated damage caused by the enlightenment failures on western civilization and our subsequent conquest by primitivism and primitive peoples. I’ve enumerated the reasons for this failure elsewhere repeatedly: the enfranchisement of women in particular, but also of the non-contributing classes, without adding a house for them, who have used their numbers under the error of majority rule to transform our culture of heavy investment in commons to one of exaggerated consumption of every kind of capital: genetic, familial, institutional, normative, historical, and cultural. ****So I am constructing a (negative) political philosophy out of necessary limits, not a (positive) personal philosophy for the exploration of possibilities**** I will however, address virtues and a virtue ethic, when I finish with aesthetics – and personal philosophy will be the last subject. But why last? Given this philosophical hierarchy, personal philosophy one way or another must account for all that comes before it. – Metaphysics (existence, for acting creatures) – Epistemology ( knowledge, truth and falsehood ) – Ethical and Moral Philosophy (cooperation in production) – Political Philosophy (dispute resolution and commons production) – Philosophy of War and Conquest (when cooperation and politics fail) – Aesthetics ( Excellence and Beauty ) – Personal Philosophy (achieving one’s greatest excellence) Now, to put Nietzsche and all other radicals into position, he is rebelling against the status quo, and attempting to restore our pagan aristocratic ethos of excellence – no doubt because he found it in his studies of the ancient world. I see myself doing the same. But from advocacy of institutional prohibitions (public law) rather than advocacy personal aspirations (personal religion). Or put another way, by mandate to all rather than choice of any. Now, how is mandating a prohibition on parasitism for all different from advocating unconstrained vision for some? Well, in the sense that I don’t, in propertarianism and testimonoialism, advocate in favor of ends, only in favor of means of persuing any chosen ends. So in this sense, I am trying to make it possible to be superman for the supermen, and secure dependent for the common fool who wishes it. THis is why propertarianism is ‘progressive’. It’s an innovation that increases institutional service of disparate needs and wants. So under Propertarianism, I show that you can pursue excellence (overman/superman) without regard for the material contribution, normative apporval, or status signals of the less ambitious beings – as long as you pose no costs upon those others. And if you choose some end whose means requires an imposition of those costs upon others, that is not a moral question but an immoral one by definition. If an immoral life (that violates the incentive to cooperate and therefore draws determined retaliation against you) then that is merely a choice. It is just hard to understand how it is a wise one. Or why one would look to philosophy to justify it. One does not justify immoral passions since they are outside of the moral constraint, beause they are by definition a violation of the demands of rational cooperation. I do not say one cannot act immorally. I say just the opposite. That for the strong to forgo the conquest of the weak, there must be some rational benefit to doing so. The only reason is the same one that prevented the Khan from the genocide of the Chinese: it was more profitable to govern and tax them. The same is true for the rest of us with less power at our disposal: cooperation is not only preferable, it is necessary for survival – even if that cooperation is limited to a promise to leave one another alone and therefore impose no costs upon one another. That in itself is a productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange with nothing but positive externalities. —“I’ve noticed so much of your analysis is about evolutionary strategy.”– Yes, because in the end, we need some means of commensurability and decidability between individuals and groups. While we are, by virtue of self awareness and enormous memory, capable of “enjoying or not life’s ride” we are along for the ride. If other than persistence, how do we make agreements with one another without merely saying one preys upon another? We need a means of ultimate choice: to persist. —“Where is the alienated artist? Who is he?”— Well, first, is anyone alienated? (A marxist term blaming others for one’s failings.) Lets ask it differently: Would cooperating with them produce negative externalities – like encouraging more immigration of an underclass?(Often) Are they unable to valuably cooperate with others – and therefore unneeded?(Often) Or are the ‘ostracized’ merely those who are displeasing others – and therefore undesirable? (Sometimes). Or are they merely unsatisfied with their social status(mostly)? And did they have the opportunity to attempt to find good manners, productive use and purpose? (usually in the developed world, yes.) If you mean, instead of ‘alienated’, ‘unsatisfied’ and seeking to envision the world differently from how it is (yes), then that is how artists already approach art theory. We often fail to find a means of obtaining status signals, from others, and from our own perception of success and failure. As such we are unsatisfied. And our evolutionary origins inform us of our reproductive, cooperative and productive failure. So, instead, you are asking, “Where is self status seeking, and other status seeking obtainable within Propertarianism?” And that is, that as long as he envisions a world achievable without the imposition of costs upon others who have not themselves imposed costs upon others, then the world needs him as much under propertarian ethics than under any other. Just as research results in learning what does not work, leaving only what works. Just as epistemology is learning what is false, leaving only what is a truth candidate. Just as morality is doing whatever you wish as long as it imposes no involuntary cost upon others, then all propertarianism tells us is what NOT to do, since there is no perfect man to imitate – that would be evolutionarily, scientifically, epistemologically and morally impossible. —“Defining myself in terms of macro-evolution becomes an anti-identity, as that framework is already fairly plebeian, looking for the preservation of a non-identity mass.”— That’s very German (continental) terminology. (a) “Defining Myself”, Does this mean envisioning a character (god/godlike/hero) to imitate? Why do we need something to imitate? We need it for decidability: so that we know what actions to expend resources upon and those that we should not. Otherwise we fail to concentrate our resources in the pursuit of an end. (b) “…in terms of macro-evolution..” is equally interesting terminology. How to we launder that set of terms? I think by saying “Anthropomorphizing my goals by means of a virtue ethics helps me. But why should I care about the evolutionary strategy of the group, and adapt your virtue ethics to suit it?” Conformity to arbitrary norms, signals and rituals is a matter of personal utility, just as embracing alternative norms, signals and rituals. Conformity to non-parasitism is objectively inviting retaliation or objectively avoiding it. If you wish to encourage retaliation and abandon cooperation, then there are no moral questions to be asked. Propertarianism and Testimonialism are not positive assertions, but negative assertions: prohbitions on that which is harmful to the pursuit of ANY end by ANY means while retaining the rationality of cooperation with those around you. It would be ‘groupish’ and ‘herd’ behavior if I were to recommend positive actions. Truth candidates are what remains if we eliminate falsehood, moral actions are what if we eliminate immoral action, desirable actions what we remain if we eliminate undesirable actions. The only heroism I advocate is that all men must pay to police the commons if they wish liberty. I don’t advocate what one would do with that liberty. That would be illogical, wouldn’t it? Science is prohibitionary, not ideal. THE CENTRAL QUESTION —“I realize you mean it more operationally, but it still is so devoid of life.”——“Where is the good life? That which optimized my ant farm?”——“I realize there’s an overlap between personal aristo life and its inspirational impact on society, but I don’t get the sense you emphasize it in your writing and speaking.”— Science is prohibitionary, not ideal. —“Your system is one of the best explanatory frameworks I’ve encountered, and yet it’s not a virtue ethics. It’s more: “how do we optimally engineer society.”— In the schema virtue ethics (imitation), rule ethics (deontological) and outcome based ethics (teleological / consequentialist) describe a schema from the positive and most ignorant of the world to the prohibitionary and most knowledgeable of the world. I think that history shows us many great men, all of whom can serve as virtuous characters so long as we do not violate the principles that make cooperation possible, and the liberty and prosperity that arises from cooperation. METHOD—“I know your education is in fine art, which makes me even more perplexed how dedicated you are to this “Anglo hyperempiricism.”— Well, it is more that I want to avoid the mistakes of the french, german, and ashkenazi thinkers to whom we owe anglo neo-puritanism, french devolution, german pseudorationalism, and ashkenazi pseudoscience. If an argument is inspirationally constructed then by definition it is loaded and framed. If I want to elminate the deceits of loading and framing then my approach serves that purposes, just as the operationalism of scientific literature serves that purpose. –“If I can be allowed the pretense of footing, it’s clear to me you’re a scientist, where I’m a psychologist.”— Well, I know what a scientist is, but I also know that psychology was developed as a means of deception: freud’s pseudoscientific alternative to nietzsche (whose vision he obviously feared.) Psychology as it is practiced to day can be conducted etither as the study of incentives, or the study of cognitive limitations and biases. I think you might mean, or might be better served by the term aesthete, not psychologist. —“What an irony then, that I’m actually trained in formal science and you’re trained in formal art.”— I put forth the thesis in university that there is no difference in the mode of creative expression, only in the ability to percieve each mode of creative expression. I think another means of positioning that difference is between an unscientific and non-correspondent and therefore UNCONSTRAINED vision of life, and scientific, correspondent and tehrefore CONSTRAINED vision of life. CLOSING I have not done this quite the service it deserves but at the moment it’s the best I can afford to put forward. Curt Doolittle

  • Q&A: Curt, Where is a Virtue Ethics?

    Q&A: CURT, WHAT ABOUT INSPIRATION? WHERE IS VIRTUE? [W]ell, that is deceptively complex question. The problem of my (our) era, is the accumulated damage caused by the enlightenment failures on western civilization and our subsequent conquest by primitivism and primitive peoples. I’ve enumerated the reasons for this failure elsewhere repeatedly: the enfranchisement of women in particular, but also of the non-contributing classes, without adding a house for them, who have used their numbers under the error of majority rule to transform our culture of heavy investment in commons to one of exaggerated consumption of every kind of capital: genetic, familial, institutional, normative, historical, and cultural. ****So I am constructing a (negative) political philosophy out of necessary limits, not a (positive) personal philosophy for the exploration of possibilities**** I will however, address virtues and a virtue ethic, when I finish with aesthetics – and personal philosophy will be the last subject. But why last? Given this philosophical hierarchy, personal philosophy one way or another must account for all that comes before it. – Metaphysics (existence, for acting creatures) – Epistemology ( knowledge, truth and falsehood ) – Ethical and Moral Philosophy (cooperation in production) – Political Philosophy (dispute resolution and commons production) – Philosophy of War and Conquest (when cooperation and politics fail) – Aesthetics ( Excellence and Beauty ) – Personal Philosophy (achieving one’s greatest excellence) Now, to put Nietzsche and all other radicals into position, he is rebelling against the status quo, and attempting to restore our pagan aristocratic ethos of excellence – no doubt because he found it in his studies of the ancient world. I see myself doing the same. But from advocacy of institutional prohibitions (public law) rather than advocacy personal aspirations (personal religion). Or put another way, by mandate to all rather than choice of any. Now, how is mandating a prohibition on parasitism for all different from advocating unconstrained vision for some? Well, in the sense that I don’t, in propertarianism and testimonoialism, advocate in favor of ends, only in favor of means of persuing any chosen ends. So in this sense, I am trying to make it possible to be superman for the supermen, and secure dependent for the common fool who wishes it. THis is why propertarianism is ‘progressive’. It’s an innovation that increases institutional service of disparate needs and wants. So under Propertarianism, I show that you can pursue excellence (overman/superman) without regard for the material contribution, normative apporval, or status signals of the less ambitious beings – as long as you pose no costs upon those others. And if you choose some end whose means requires an imposition of those costs upon others, that is not a moral question but an immoral one by definition. If an immoral life (that violates the incentive to cooperate and therefore draws determined retaliation against you) then that is merely a choice. It is just hard to understand how it is a wise one. Or why one would look to philosophy to justify it. One does not justify immoral passions since they are outside of the moral constraint, beause they are by definition a violation of the demands of rational cooperation. I do not say one cannot act immorally. I say just the opposite. That for the strong to forgo the conquest of the weak, there must be some rational benefit to doing so. The only reason is the same one that prevented the Khan from the genocide of the Chinese: it was more profitable to govern and tax them. The same is true for the rest of us with less power at our disposal: cooperation is not only preferable, it is necessary for survival – even if that cooperation is limited to a promise to leave one another alone and therefore impose no costs upon one another. That in itself is a productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange with nothing but positive externalities. —“I’ve noticed so much of your analysis is about evolutionary strategy.”– Yes, because in the end, we need some means of commensurability and decidability between individuals and groups. While we are, by virtue of self awareness and enormous memory, capable of “enjoying or not life’s ride” we are along for the ride. If other than persistence, how do we make agreements with one another without merely saying one preys upon another? We need a means of ultimate choice: to persist. —“Where is the alienated artist? Who is he?”— Well, first, is anyone alienated? (A marxist term blaming others for one’s failings.) Lets ask it differently: Would cooperating with them produce negative externalities – like encouraging more immigration of an underclass?(Often) Are they unable to valuably cooperate with others – and therefore unneeded?(Often) Or are the ‘ostracized’ merely those who are displeasing others – and therefore undesirable? (Sometimes). Or are they merely unsatisfied with their social status(mostly)? And did they have the opportunity to attempt to find good manners, productive use and purpose? (usually in the developed world, yes.) If you mean, instead of ‘alienated’, ‘unsatisfied’ and seeking to envision the world differently from how it is (yes), then that is how artists already approach art theory. We often fail to find a means of obtaining status signals, from others, and from our own perception of success and failure. As such we are unsatisfied. And our evolutionary origins inform us of our reproductive, cooperative and productive failure. So, instead, you are asking, “Where is self status seeking, and other status seeking obtainable within Propertarianism?” And that is, that as long as he envisions a world achievable without the imposition of costs upon others who have not themselves imposed costs upon others, then the world needs him as much under propertarian ethics than under any other. Just as research results in learning what does not work, leaving only what works. Just as epistemology is learning what is false, leaving only what is a truth candidate. Just as morality is doing whatever you wish as long as it imposes no involuntary cost upon others, then all propertarianism tells us is what NOT to do, since there is no perfect man to imitate – that would be evolutionarily, scientifically, epistemologically and morally impossible. —“Defining myself in terms of macro-evolution becomes an anti-identity, as that framework is already fairly plebeian, looking for the preservation of a non-identity mass.”— That’s very German (continental) terminology. (a) “Defining Myself”, Does this mean envisioning a character (god/godlike/hero) to imitate? Why do we need something to imitate? We need it for decidability: so that we know what actions to expend resources upon and those that we should not. Otherwise we fail to concentrate our resources in the pursuit of an end. (b) “…in terms of macro-evolution..” is equally interesting terminology. How to we launder that set of terms? I think by saying “Anthropomorphizing my goals by means of a virtue ethics helps me. But why should I care about the evolutionary strategy of the group, and adapt your virtue ethics to suit it?” Conformity to arbitrary norms, signals and rituals is a matter of personal utility, just as embracing alternative norms, signals and rituals. Conformity to non-parasitism is objectively inviting retaliation or objectively avoiding it. If you wish to encourage retaliation and abandon cooperation, then there are no moral questions to be asked. Propertarianism and Testimonialism are not positive assertions, but negative assertions: prohbitions on that which is harmful to the pursuit of ANY end by ANY means while retaining the rationality of cooperation with those around you. It would be ‘groupish’ and ‘herd’ behavior if I were to recommend positive actions. Truth candidates are what remains if we eliminate falsehood, moral actions are what if we eliminate immoral action, desirable actions what we remain if we eliminate undesirable actions. The only heroism I advocate is that all men must pay to police the commons if they wish liberty. I don’t advocate what one would do with that liberty. That would be illogical, wouldn’t it? Science is prohibitionary, not ideal. THE CENTRAL QUESTION —“I realize you mean it more operationally, but it still is so devoid of life.”——“Where is the good life? That which optimized my ant farm?”——“I realize there’s an overlap between personal aristo life and its inspirational impact on society, but I don’t get the sense you emphasize it in your writing and speaking.”— Science is prohibitionary, not ideal. —“Your system is one of the best explanatory frameworks I’ve encountered, and yet it’s not a virtue ethics. It’s more: “how do we optimally engineer society.”— In the schema virtue ethics (imitation), rule ethics (deontological) and outcome based ethics (teleological / consequentialist) describe a schema from the positive and most ignorant of the world to the prohibitionary and most knowledgeable of the world. I think that history shows us many great men, all of whom can serve as virtuous characters so long as we do not violate the principles that make cooperation possible, and the liberty and prosperity that arises from cooperation. METHOD—“I know your education is in fine art, which makes me even more perplexed how dedicated you are to this “Anglo hyperempiricism.”— Well, it is more that I want to avoid the mistakes of the french, german, and ashkenazi thinkers to whom we owe anglo neo-puritanism, french devolution, german pseudorationalism, and ashkenazi pseudoscience. If an argument is inspirationally constructed then by definition it is loaded and framed. If I want to elminate the deceits of loading and framing then my approach serves that purposes, just as the operationalism of scientific literature serves that purpose. –“If I can be allowed the pretense of footing, it’s clear to me you’re a scientist, where I’m a psychologist.”— Well, I know what a scientist is, but I also know that psychology was developed as a means of deception: freud’s pseudoscientific alternative to nietzsche (whose vision he obviously feared.) Psychology as it is practiced to day can be conducted etither as the study of incentives, or the study of cognitive limitations and biases. I think you might mean, or might be better served by the term aesthete, not psychologist. —“What an irony then, that I’m actually trained in formal science and you’re trained in formal art.”— I put forth the thesis in university that there is no difference in the mode of creative expression, only in the ability to percieve each mode of creative expression. I think another means of positioning that difference is between an unscientific and non-correspondent and therefore UNCONSTRAINED vision of life, and scientific, correspondent and tehrefore CONSTRAINED vision of life. CLOSING I have not done this quite the service it deserves but at the moment it’s the best I can afford to put forward. Curt Doolittle

  • Reviewing the Last Six Years of Progress on Propertarianism

    [M]y first draft in 2006, in retrospect, is almost embarrassing. My second draft in 2010, was fairly complete, but when I got to the section where I requried truth telling in government, I’d focused on ‘calculability’ and ‘traceabilty’ as means of preventing abuses of funds, and abuses of the law. My third draft in 2013 still had me stuck with the same problem. I had no idea at the time, that six years of work later, I would have taken that early intuition and turned it into Operationalism as a test not only of truthfulness but of existential possibility. It was another year before I made it through truth. And another year to develop the intertemporal division of perception, cognition, knowedge, labor and advocacy resulting in the market for commons..

    And while I was pretty sure in 2009 that the solution to government was a market, and I knew strict construction was required, I did not know the philosophical basis for it. I knew that moral intuitions were reducible to property rights, and that variations in moral intuitions reflected the property rights necessary for each reproductive bias. But from today’s vantage point I’ve come very far in the ability to articulate these ideas as necessary, and I am certainly better at communicating them, the fact of the matter is that most of what I have done is improve explanation of why such things are true and necessary. But the original understanding that the solution to the deceit of the 20th century, as the second attempt at mysticism of the west, was truth telling, and that we had to create a market for commons to accommodate the emerging heterogeneous interests of any polity with any sufficiently complex division of perception, cognition, labor and advocacy. I did’nt expect to end up advocating eugenic reproduction. I did not expect the racial differences to be (largely) rates of suppression of the underclasses. I did not expect to come out so strongly in favor of the family. I did not expect to demand a revolution. I viewed my work as libertarian and institutionally progressive yet it is the right that finds my work most interesting (because it proves that their intuitions are correct.) So I will finish The Politics this year, and possibly aesthetics. That means I will write up draft constitutions for various forms of propertarian political orders (honest and truthful regardless of whether collective or libertarian). A few people have asked me to address what I will call personal philosophy, even if I view my work as political and that inspiration is not my job – that’s positivist. My job is preventing deceit and error. So maybe I will do that or not. I will also deal with the DARK SUBJECTS: revolution, and war. But I do not want to do that until last. So that I think will be next year. Hopefully in time for the election.

  • Reviewing the Last Six Years of Progress on Propertarianism

    [M]y first draft in 2006, in retrospect, is almost embarrassing. My second draft in 2010, was fairly complete, but when I got to the section where I requried truth telling in government, I’d focused on ‘calculability’ and ‘traceabilty’ as means of preventing abuses of funds, and abuses of the law. My third draft in 2013 still had me stuck with the same problem. I had no idea at the time, that six years of work later, I would have taken that early intuition and turned it into Operationalism as a test not only of truthfulness but of existential possibility. It was another year before I made it through truth. And another year to develop the intertemporal division of perception, cognition, knowedge, labor and advocacy resulting in the market for commons..

    And while I was pretty sure in 2009 that the solution to government was a market, and I knew strict construction was required, I did not know the philosophical basis for it. I knew that moral intuitions were reducible to property rights, and that variations in moral intuitions reflected the property rights necessary for each reproductive bias. But from today’s vantage point I’ve come very far in the ability to articulate these ideas as necessary, and I am certainly better at communicating them, the fact of the matter is that most of what I have done is improve explanation of why such things are true and necessary. But the original understanding that the solution to the deceit of the 20th century, as the second attempt at mysticism of the west, was truth telling, and that we had to create a market for commons to accommodate the emerging heterogeneous interests of any polity with any sufficiently complex division of perception, cognition, labor and advocacy. I did’nt expect to end up advocating eugenic reproduction. I did not expect the racial differences to be (largely) rates of suppression of the underclasses. I did not expect to come out so strongly in favor of the family. I did not expect to demand a revolution. I viewed my work as libertarian and institutionally progressive yet it is the right that finds my work most interesting (because it proves that their intuitions are correct.) So I will finish The Politics this year, and possibly aesthetics. That means I will write up draft constitutions for various forms of propertarian political orders (honest and truthful regardless of whether collective or libertarian). A few people have asked me to address what I will call personal philosophy, even if I view my work as political and that inspiration is not my job – that’s positivist. My job is preventing deceit and error. So maybe I will do that or not. I will also deal with the DARK SUBJECTS: revolution, and war. But I do not want to do that until last. So that I think will be next year. Hopefully in time for the election.