[A]ll progress in truth, like all progress in law, is a reaction to progress in imagination, error, bias, deception and propaganda. The reason we could not suppress the left, is because we did not yet understand Truth. Now that we understand Truth, we can criticize, suppress and punish the left as the liars and thieves that they are.
Theme: Truth
-
The Law Evolves as Science Evolves: By Reaction
[A]ll progress in truth, like all progress in law, is a reaction to progress in imagination, error, bias, deception and propaganda. The reason we could not suppress the left, is because we did not yet understand Truth. Now that we understand Truth, we can criticize, suppress and punish the left as the liars and thieves that they are.
-
THE LAW EVOLVES AS SCIENCE EVOLVES All progress in truth, like all progress in l
THE LAW EVOLVES AS SCIENCE EVOLVES
All progress in truth, like all progress in law, is a reaction to progress in imagination, error, bias, deception and propaganda. The reason we could not suppress the left, is because we did not yet understand Truth. Now that we understand Truth, we can criticize, suppress and punish the left as the liars and thieves that they are.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-14 12:22:00 UTC
-
The Relationship Between (Neo)Reaction and Science
CONSERVATISM -> REACTION -> PROPERTARIANISM (TESTIMONIALISM)
—“Reaction is foremost about embracing reality. An objective reality exists apart whatever stories men may tell themselves. This reality is harsh and bitter as we live in a fallen world. Reality can be denied temporarily, but will always win in the end.”—
[I] thought it was a good opportunity to talk about the relationship between Reaction and Science. (a) Reaction is an articulate criticism not a solution, and what solutions Curtis provided are afterthoughts – which is why we never talk about them seriously. (b) Reaction provides a language – a terminology of criticism. Which is good. Not just for signaling one another, but because the terminology provides a consistent argumentative structure for ongoing development of ideas – and leaves behind a cannon of ideas easier to learn and whose meaning is easier to maintain over time. Terms frame arguments. And members of reaction have succeeded in framing the argument. To defeat an idea, we must be able to name it and discuss it. That effort was successful. (c) But Reaction is stated in Continental (moral) and rational philosophical language. Just as the opposition relies upon Continental (moral) and rational philosophical language. It is NOT stated in scientific language free of moral loading and framing, nor is it stated in the Anglo Analytic (scientific) language. It is an argumentatively moral and rational criticism, not a legal, analytic, and scientific alternative. Criticisms are necessary because they motivate us as all good ideology should, but solutions are necessary also, because they can be stated operationally, and put into place operationally, and the rule of law can institutionalize them over long periods of, because they are ‘calculable’ statements rather than ‘interpretable’ statements. (d) The opposition uses pseudoscience. And reaction uses science to counter their pseudoscience – thanks to the revolution started by Pinker. And that corresponds to our history: The Aristocratic Egalitarianism of our European and indo-european ancestors, manorialism as an economic and political system, conservatism as a political philosophy, are each objectively scientific processes (observation, trial, error, and reaction), using the scientific method of cooperation (rule of law, common law, property rights, independent judiciary), (e) Conservatism as an intellectual movement failed, in no small part, because our scientific civilization was still reliant upon the rational moral language of our religious ancestors. Reaction is the first meaningful improvement in conservative (aristocratic) argument in decades. But, ’embracing reality’ is done in the language of correspondence with reality: science and the philosophy of science: analytic philosophy. Science has evolved to become the universal language of truthfulness. In no small part because it is laundered of moral loading, framing, and justification. Morality and Rationalism are allegorical and sentimental technologies. Science and Analytic philosophy are procedural, operational, existential, and unloaded technologies. Morality may be inspiring but science is actionable. I can make a legal contract – a constitution – that is hard to break. But I cannot make a moral analogy that survives the same attacks. (f) The next evolution of reaction must be not one of improving our loading and framing – although that is necessary for moral antagonism that encourages people to take up arms – but one of articulating the revocation of the errors of the enlightenment in actionable, scientific, analytic, and legal terms. These scientific, analytic, LEGAL and therefore AMORAL terms, are not as inspiring as the pervasive moral indignation we can load in continental rationalism. They are not as easy to understand, either. And we will require even more new terms. But they are much more precise tools for the construction of a set of demands for a set of institutions that will restore our ancient scientific civilization to its original direction as the guiding language of mankind. Finish the transformation of the scientific civilization to the language of science. Liberty in our lifetimes. Curt Doolittle, The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
-
The Relationship Between (Neo)Reaction and Science
CONSERVATISM -> REACTION -> PROPERTARIANISM (TESTIMONIALISM)
—“Reaction is foremost about embracing reality. An objective reality exists apart whatever stories men may tell themselves. This reality is harsh and bitter as we live in a fallen world. Reality can be denied temporarily, but will always win in the end.”—
[I] thought it was a good opportunity to talk about the relationship between Reaction and Science. (a) Reaction is an articulate criticism not a solution, and what solutions Curtis provided are afterthoughts – which is why we never talk about them seriously. (b) Reaction provides a language – a terminology of criticism. Which is good. Not just for signaling one another, but because the terminology provides a consistent argumentative structure for ongoing development of ideas – and leaves behind a cannon of ideas easier to learn and whose meaning is easier to maintain over time. Terms frame arguments. And members of reaction have succeeded in framing the argument. To defeat an idea, we must be able to name it and discuss it. That effort was successful. (c) But Reaction is stated in Continental (moral) and rational philosophical language. Just as the opposition relies upon Continental (moral) and rational philosophical language. It is NOT stated in scientific language free of moral loading and framing, nor is it stated in the Anglo Analytic (scientific) language. It is an argumentatively moral and rational criticism, not a legal, analytic, and scientific alternative. Criticisms are necessary because they motivate us as all good ideology should, but solutions are necessary also, because they can be stated operationally, and put into place operationally, and the rule of law can institutionalize them over long periods of, because they are ‘calculable’ statements rather than ‘interpretable’ statements. (d) The opposition uses pseudoscience. And reaction uses science to counter their pseudoscience – thanks to the revolution started by Pinker. And that corresponds to our history: The Aristocratic Egalitarianism of our European and indo-european ancestors, manorialism as an economic and political system, conservatism as a political philosophy, are each objectively scientific processes (observation, trial, error, and reaction), using the scientific method of cooperation (rule of law, common law, property rights, independent judiciary), (e) Conservatism as an intellectual movement failed, in no small part, because our scientific civilization was still reliant upon the rational moral language of our religious ancestors. Reaction is the first meaningful improvement in conservative (aristocratic) argument in decades. But, ’embracing reality’ is done in the language of correspondence with reality: science and the philosophy of science: analytic philosophy. Science has evolved to become the universal language of truthfulness. In no small part because it is laundered of moral loading, framing, and justification. Morality and Rationalism are allegorical and sentimental technologies. Science and Analytic philosophy are procedural, operational, existential, and unloaded technologies. Morality may be inspiring but science is actionable. I can make a legal contract – a constitution – that is hard to break. But I cannot make a moral analogy that survives the same attacks. (f) The next evolution of reaction must be not one of improving our loading and framing – although that is necessary for moral antagonism that encourages people to take up arms – but one of articulating the revocation of the errors of the enlightenment in actionable, scientific, analytic, and legal terms. These scientific, analytic, LEGAL and therefore AMORAL terms, are not as inspiring as the pervasive moral indignation we can load in continental rationalism. They are not as easy to understand, either. And we will require even more new terms. But they are much more precise tools for the construction of a set of demands for a set of institutions that will restore our ancient scientific civilization to its original direction as the guiding language of mankind. Finish the transformation of the scientific civilization to the language of science. Liberty in our lifetimes. Curt Doolittle, The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
-
Propertarianism’s High Barrier to Entry is a “Good”
[O]ne of the problems that plagues both Neo-Reaction and Libertinism(Rothbardian Cosmopolitan libertarianism), is the lack of formal logic (building proofs: criticisms) means both disciplines attract lunatics. And there isn’t any defense against it. I had always considered Propertarianism’s rather challenging learning curve as a negative. But in light of what I’ve seen, it’s actually a positive. Either you can construct a Propertarian argument or you can’t. If you can’t, well, then you don’t have anything to say.
-
Propertarianism’s High Barrier to Entry is a “Good”
[O]ne of the problems that plagues both Neo-Reaction and Libertinism(Rothbardian Cosmopolitan libertarianism), is the lack of formal logic (building proofs: criticisms) means both disciplines attract lunatics. And there isn’t any defense against it. I had always considered Propertarianism’s rather challenging learning curve as a negative. But in light of what I’ve seen, it’s actually a positive. Either you can construct a Propertarian argument or you can’t. If you can’t, well, then you don’t have anything to say.
-
Propertarianism for New Friends: One Bite at a Time.
[L]ibertarianism is an intellectual, empirical and analytic movement, and conservatism is a sentimental, moral, and analogistic movement.
The difference in the language of the movements has partly to do with the production cycles that conservatives (human capital and norms) and libertarians (economic production) each emphasize. We use arguments that reflect the temporal bias of our political and reproductive preferences.
Which is why I argue that political exchanges between conservatives(warriors/long term risk abatement), libertarians(investors/medium term production), and progressives (mothers/short-term consumption) are necessary in order to make use of the perceptive and cognitive differences of the division of inter-temporal knowledge and labor. Each of us is temporally spectrum biased (and in the case of progressives: spectrum blind.)
Propertarianism suggests that innovation in anglo classical liberal institutions and law are necessary under total enfranchisement – both as a means of dividing power(negative), AND to make use of all available information (positive).
There is no reason that we cannot create a market for commons just as we create a market for private consumption in goods and services. There is no reason except the existing monopoly government that the socialists put into place as a means of destroying our division of inter-temporal knowledge and labor.
So, that is the central hypothesis I work from: that while we only NEED rule of law, under the one principle of non-imposition of costs, articulated in law as positive property rights, managed by an independent judiciary, decided by a jury of one’s peers – that we also prefer and possibly need, the production of commons.
And that while we are universally governed by rule law, and only law, that we can construct markets for the production of commons. And that the ‘legislature’ then is eliminated from all of politics. No law can be created, only discovered. And that the government need only concern itself with governance of the production and maintenance of commons.
This is, I believe, the next evolution of classical liberalism, and the means of eliminating majority tyranny, and perhaps all tyranny.
Anarchy is not the answer, and we were merely useful idiots for libertine anarchists as we were for neo-conservatives, socialists and communists..
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOU?
Well it means you have something to fight for, instead of something just to fight against.
It means that propertarianism is the first intellectual, analytic, scientific, fully rational means of arguing our ancient, unique, high trust / rapid growth model of civilization.
It also means though, that I tend to see sentimental expression and moralizing as a regressive and damaging means of expressing our preferences. In other words, it might feel good to express your sentiments, but it doesn’t change anything except your emotional state.
So I ask you to try to learn Propertarianism by following me and Eli Harman (Eli is much easier to understand). And I ask you to be patient because it will take one year or more to swallow the “Very, Very, Very, Big Red Pill” that is Propertarianism, one bite at a time.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.SUGGESTED TO FOLLOW OR FRIEND:
Curt Doolittle (Ukraine) – Propertarianism and Institutions.
Eli Harman (Alaska) – (How do I position Eli? Poet? New-Nietzche?)
Michael Phillip (NZ) – Philosophy of Science (Michael is a critic of unscientific thought)
Skye Stewart (Maine) – Skye pans for gold in the intellectual stream.
My site: www.propertarianism.com – I sketch work here on Facebook and post the better pieces to the site a few times a month.
The Propertarian Forum propertarianforum.wordpress.com
HBD_Chick’s blog on marriage patterns.
Any Alt-Right
Any Neo-Reaction.
Any Red Pill.
Any of the top 100 econ blogs.EDITORS/CRITICS
Roman Skaskiw (My ‘Boss’ – What I should and should not be doing at any given moment)
Ayelam Valentine Agaliba (UK / Ghana) – Critical Rationalism / African Politics (Philosophy advisor to whom I am forever grateful)
Karl Brooks (has recently begun correcting for argumentative clarity and seems to ‘grok it’ all.)
Johannes Meixner (Grammar, sentence and sense editor)
Don Finnegan (my other boss, soul mate, who inspired me to take my work public)
And the dozens of others I haven’t mentioned but who help me every day. (You know who you are. smile emoticon )READING LIST
I try to keep a current ‘short list’. It’s the first section at the top of the page:
http://www.propertarianism.com/reading-list/BLOGS ETC
I read pretty much every single economist’s blog every day, every paper at SSRN that’s relevant. And some books – although I usually limit myself to empirical works in the social sciences.Source: Curt Doolittle – FOR MY NEW FRIENDS AND FOLLOWERS: “ONE BITE AT A…
-
THE WAR ON THE TRUTH: LARRY SOMMERS EFFECT HITS NOBEL WINNER —“He went on to s
THE WAR ON THE TRUTH: LARRY SOMMERS EFFECT HITS NOBEL WINNER
—“He went on to say he stood by some of the comments. “I did mean the part about having trouble with girls,” he said. “I have fallen in love with people in the lab and people in the lab have fallen in love with me and it’s very disruptive to the science because it’s terribly important that in a lab people are on a level playing field. “I found that these emotional entanglements made life very difficult. “I’m really, really sorry I caused any offence, that’s awful. I certainly didn’t mean that. I just meant to be honest, actually.””—
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-11 10:15:00 UTC
-
CONSERVATISM -> REACTION -> PROPERTARIANISM (TESTIMONIALISM) Free Northerner; If
CONSERVATISM -> REACTION -> PROPERTARIANISM (TESTIMONIALISM)
Free Northerner;
If you will forgive me a second comment on the same post; regarding:
—“Reaction is foremost about embracing reality. An objective reality exists apart whatever stories men may tell themselves. This reality is harsh and bitter as we live in a fallen world. Reality can be denied temporarily, but will always win in the end.”—
I thought it was a good opportunity to talk about the relationship between Reaction and Science.
(a) Reaction a criticism not a solution, and what solutions Curtis provided are afterthoughts – which is why we never talk about them seriously.
(b) Reaction provides a language – a terminology of criticism. Which is good. Not just for signaling one another, but because the terminology provides a consistent argumentative structure for ongoing development of ideas – and leaves behind a cannon of ideas easier to learn and whose meaning is easier to maintain over time. Terms frame arguments. And members of reaction have succeeded in framing the argument. To defeat an idea, we must be able to name it and discuss it. That effort was successful.
(c) But Reaction is stated in Continental (moral) and rational philosophical language. Just as the opposition relies upon Continental (moral) and rational philosophical language. It is NOT stated in scientific language free of moral loading and framing, nor is it stated in the Anglo Analytic (scientific) language. It is an argumentatively moral and rational criticism, not a legal, analytic, and scientific alternative. Criticisms are necessary because they motivate us as all good ideology should, but solutions are necessary also, because they can be stated operationally, and put into place operationally, and the rule of law can institutionalize them over long periods of, because they are ‘calculable’ statements rather than ‘interpretable’ statements.
(d) The opposition uses pseudoscience. And reaction uses science to counter their pseudoscience – thanks to the revolution started by Pinker. And that corresponds to our history: The Aristocratic Egalitarianism of our European and indo-european ancestors, manorialism as an economic and political system, conservatism as a political philosophy, are each objectively scientific processes (observation, trial, error, and reaction), using the scientific method of cooperation (rule of law, common law, property rights, independent judiciary),
(e) Conservatism as an intellectual movement failed, in no small part, because our scientific civilization was still reliant upon the rational moral language of our religious ancestors. Reaction is the first meaningful improvement in conservative (aristocratic) argument in decades.
But, ’embracing reality’ is done in the language of correspondence with reality: science and the philosophy of science: analytic philosophy. Science has evolved to become the universal language of truthfulness. In no small part because it is laundered of moral loading, framing, and justification. Morality and Rationalism are allegorical and sentimental technologies. Science and Analytic philosophy are procedural, operational, existential, and unloaded technologies. Morality may be inspiring but science is actionable. I can make a legal contract – a constitution – that is hard to break. But I cannot make a moral analogy that survives the same attacks.
(f) The next evolution of reaction must be not one of improving our loading and framing – although that is necessary for moral antagonism that encourages people to take up arms – but one of articulating the revocation of the errors of the enlightenment in actionable, scientific, analytic, and legal terms.
These scientific, analytic, LEGAL and therefore AMORAL terms, are not as inspiring as the pervasive moral indignation we can load in continental rationalism. They are not as easy to understand, either. And we will require even more new terms. But they are much more precise tools for the construction of a set of demands for a set of institutions that will restore our ancient scientific civilization to its original direction as the guiding language of mankind.
Finish the transformation of the scientific civilization to the language of science.
Liberty in our lifetimes.
Curt Doolittle,
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-10 02:34:00 UTC