WISDOM
Genius isn’t omniscience.
It’s just spending more time on a problem than anyone has before.
And spending that time standing on the shoulders of others.
Omniscience is for the gods.
Men are mortal, and reason is frail.
And we are almost always proven by later men, to be fools.
We can never know. We can only try.
And observe what succeeds or fails.
This is the meaning of wisdom.
And humility and skepticism are it’s products
Source date (UTC): 2013-03-31 07:33:00 UTC
IS PROPERTARIANISM THE INTELLECTUAL CURE TO POSTMODERNISM?
I am not sure yet. If the enlightenment was completed (corrected) then could it posit a defense against postmodernism? If we recognaize that democracy is net ‘bad’ because we no longer are families with similar interests and reproductive strategies, then possibly yes. But we must have a solution to the problem of collective investment in commons.
I am pretty sure I have solved this problem. I am not positive. But pretty sure.
More from Hicks:
“Tracing postmodernism’s roots back to Rousseau, Kant, and Marx explains how all of its elements came to be woven together. Yet identifying postmodernism’s roots and connecting them to contemporary bad consequences does not refute postmodernism. What is still needed is a refutation of those historical premises, and an identification and defense of the alternatives to them. The Enlightenment was based on premises opposite to those of postmodernism, but while the Enlightenment was able to create a magnificent world on the basis of those premises, it articulated and defended them only incompletely. That weakness is the sole source of postmodernism’s power against it. Completing the articulation and defense of those premises is therefore essential to maintaining the forward progress of the Enlightenment vision and shielding it against postmodern strategies.”
Hicks, Stephen R. C. (2010-10-19). Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (Kindle Locations 4640-4648). Ockham’s Razor Publishing / Scholargy. Kindle Edition.
Source date (UTC): 2013-03-30 08:22:00 UTC
PROGRESSIVE VERBAL DECEPTION
In postmodern discourse, truth is rejected explicitly and consistency can be a rare phenomenon. Consider the following pairs of claims.
1) On the one hand, all truth is relative; on the other hand, postmodernism tells it like it really is.
2) On the one hand, all cultures are equally deserving of respect; on the other, Western culture is uniquely destructive and bad.
3) Values are subjective—but sexism and racism are really evil. Technology is bad and destructive—and it is unfair that some people have more technology than others.
4) Tolerance is good and dominance is bad—but when postmodernists come to power, political correctness follows.
There is a common pattern here: Subjectivism and relativism in one breath, dogmatic absolutism in the next.
Hicks, Stephen R. C. (2010-10-19). Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (Kindle Locations 4281-4291). Ockham’s Razor Publishing / Scholargy. Kindle Edition.
The only possible conservative strategy is the one they adopted. Equal irrationalism and dogma.
Source date (UTC): 2013-03-30 08:16:00 UTC
ARE THERE OBJECTIVELY MORAL STATEMENTS?
(FROM ELSEWHERE)
“There is no such thing as objective morality only preferences and demonstrated preferences.”
I’m not sure that’s true.
In every society, the portfolio of norms consisting of maners (signals of fitness for voluntary transfer), ethics and morals (prohibitions on involuntary transfer), vary considerably. But all of them are signals of fitness, signals of contribution to a commons, and prohibitions on involuntary transfer.
Some of these suites of property rights produce superior economic outcomes, and some inferior. That’s true. But they aren’t preferences. Norms are not preferences they are artifacts of the process of evolutionary cooperation according to prejudices (pre-judgements).
Given that human beings universally eschew involuntary transfer, in every possible culture and circumstance, and will act twice as hard to punish it as they will for their own interest, its clear that it’s not a purely subjective phenomenon.
And in fact it is a necessary phenomenon which genetics must eventually enforce. So while the arrangement of property rights and obligations in any set of norms may vary, the fact that humans observe norms out of prohibition on involuntary transfer is entirely objective.
So, moral actions are only a preference in those cases where normative codes, like laws, are general proscriptions, and where for specific circumstances, one’s actions do not create an involuntary transfer.
Moral codes may correctly or incorrectly constituted at any given moment (because they are intergenerational habits and must be constantly re-tested by each generation). But as long as they are prohibitions on involuntary transfers, then they are in fact, objective.
If members of a group observe a set of norms, and by observing those norms, forgo opportunities for gratification or self interest, then they have in fact paid for those norms. If others do not pay for those norms, and constrain themselves to signaling, then that’s not an involuntary transfer.if however, others choose to sieze opportunities created by the normative sacrifice of others, then that’s theft, plain and simple.
This is a quick treatment of one of mankind’s most challenging topics, but hopefully it will at least give you a few ideas.
– Curt
BTW: ALSO
a) an action is a demonstrated preference.
b) a preference is a demonstrated bias
c) a bias may or may not be subject to cognition
d) a habit is not subject to cognition, thats’ the value of them. They’re cheap.
e) a normative habit is rarely understood, but almost universally practiced. Which is the reason we even have this conversation in the first place.
f) a metaphysical bias is not subject to cognition, it’s almost never understood by anyone in any culture.
Source date (UTC): 2013-03-20 15:49:00 UTC
TODAY THERE ARE 45,000 WORDS IN THE PROPERTARIAN GLOSSARY
“To converse with me, first you must define your terms.” – Voltaire
I took that statement to heart, and about three years ago, started compiling my glossary. It is still a draft. And I’ve learned quite a bit writing it. Much of it needs a good editing pass. Some of the terms are still marked with ‘Undone’.
Today, it’s just over 45,000 words, or 180 novel length pages, and perhaps 120 academic lengthy pages. I would expect that when I’m done it is no less than a third larger. Making the definitions of terms as I use them, a 200 Page academic book, or full novel-sized paperback.
Oh. That’s WORDS not TERMS. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2013-03-17 02:53:00 UTC
[C]onservatives speak in emotionally loaded, allegorical, (and therefore archaic) language. That does not mean that the content of their beliefs or allegories is irrational, only that it is arational. But it does mean that they can’t articulate their ideas rationally. And worse, it means that their arguments, and their way of life are perpetually vulnerable to criticism. It also means that conservatives cannot find practical solutions to problems that CAN be solved without violating the system of ethics and norms that creates the high trust society. They simply cannot understand their own ideas well enough to know where they apply, where they do not, and where alternative solutions can be found that accomplish a goal through preferred ends. This is the legitimate criticism of Conservatism: that conservative philosophers have, until we P came about, failed to find a solution to the problem of articulating conservatism.
[callout] [Because their language is allegorical, Conservatism does not contain the causal density needed to articulate conservative ideas. And as such] … conservatives cannot find practical solutions to problems that CAN be solved without violating the system of ethics and norms that creates the high trust society. [/callout]
People who follow my work know that this is precisely the problem I’m trying to solve: to articulate Conservatism (Anglo Aristocratic Egalitarianism) in rational terms. Which means Propertarian terms. Because only Propertarianism provides a rational means of discussing political systems and institutions. I have now spent a significant portion of my adult life on this problem and I finally understand how absolutely difficult that problem was to solve. As an example, I’ll use Krugman’s Straw Man Of The Day to illustrate why its hard for conservatives to defend themselves, by attacking a simple, usual meaningless jibe – but one that conservatives can’t easily defend against.
Conservatives and Sewers I see that some commenters on my traffic externalities post are speculating what Republicans would say about sewers if they didn’t already exist. Well, we don’t know about Republicans, but we do know what The Economist said, in 1848, about proposals for a London sewer system: Suffering and evil are nature’s admonitions; they cannot be got rid of; and the impatient efforts of benevolence to banish them from the world by legislation, before benevolence has learned their object and their end, have always been more productive of evil than good. Sewers are socialism! It wasn’t until the Great Stink made the Houses of Parliament uninhabitable that the sewer system was created.
Now, we’re going to acknowledge that as usual, a conservative protestant Englishman doesn’t understand his own traditions well enough to articulate them. He can sense that something is wrong, with the circumstance, but not articulate what that is, nor how to find an alternative solution to the problem. And that’s understandable. I’m not sure without both Bastiat and Hayek, that we would understand them either. Without Rothbard and Hoppe, I wouldn’t know how to find solutions. However, that doesn’t mean that conservatives and libertarians can’t intuit that ‘something is wrong here’, even if they cannot articulate it. So, aside from the fact that Dr Krugman is a political propagandist, lets look at his logic, and articulate the conservative criticism of it: 1) It doesn’t follow that a one-time expense, followed by fees for usage is the same as redistribution that creates dependencies. Fees require action and therefore ‘ownership’ in the management of the [glossary:commons], the redistribution does not require action. The free-rider problem is different from the progressive-fees problem. Free riding is a negative [glossary:signal] that says free riding is a ‘right’, while progressive fees illustrate that this is not a ‘right’, but a ‘charity’. This sends ‘truthful’ signals to both parties. And truthful signals are necessary to retain the universal cultural prohibition on [glossary:involuntary transfer]s. 2) It doesn’t follow that investment in a commons is the same as state-mandated redistribution. If that was true, there wouldn’t have been factories, universities, churches and roads without a state. But there are. 3) It doesn’t follow that investment in a universal commons (infrastructure) is contrary to conservative dogma. Only that to do so out of charity at a cost, with nothing in exchange, is different from doing so out of opportunity for profit, or out of necessity for the correction of harm. (It doesn’t) 4) it doesn’t follow that taxes must be levied other than fees. (They don’t need to be.) 5) It doesn’t follow that taxes should be put into a general pool and open to use OTHER than the purpose levied. (they shouldn’t – that’s involuntary transfer – and fraud.) 6) It doesn’t follow that the monopolistic state is more efficient than competitive private administration. (It’s not. Ever.) The advantage that government provides is its ability to prohibit privatization of investments in the commons, and therefore make a commons possible. It is not that commons cannot be created without government. It is that the range of commons that can be created without privatization of them is very limited, and therefore very expensive. Since privatization of a common investment is a form of theft. The left is a kelptocracy. It is theft rather than exchange. That is the difference between the left’s vision of society and the right’s vision of society. THe right requires exchange, the left takes by theft. If conservatives understood this one idea, they would use it all the time and win arguments most of the time. Seeking exchange means that solutions are possible. Conservatism without solutions is simply a blocking agent. 7) It doesn’t follow that funding the bureaucracy won’t produce externalities that are of intolerable cost. (it does – one of which is forcing us to spend time defending ourselves against other people’s political movements, as they seek to control the predatory state) These criticisms are possible using Propertarian ethics. In fact, I often argue, that any ethical system OTHER than Propertarianism, is an attempt to obscure the transfers occurring in politics. And therefore arguing by means other than propertarianism (particularly using empathic appeals, and moral statements) is an act of fraud for the purpose of committing theft. CONSERVATISM TRADES STATUS SIGNALS FOR REDISTRIBUTION [C]onservatism is expressed in metaphorical language. And in that language, Conservatives have one ‘curse word’ with multiple meanings: “Socialism” – state control of property and production and b) “Democratic redistributive socialism” – state ownership of the proceeds from limited private control of property. This ‘curse word’ is a catch-all for ‘those people that use the state to destroy aristocratic individualism and the status signals that each of us gets from individualism regardless of our rank. And this is important. Conservatives do not feel victims, because they obtain positive status signals from other conservatives regardless of their economic rank. This status obtainable in human societies only through religious conformity and it’s consequences, or economic conformity and its consequences. Conservatives do not object to investment in the commons. Conservatism places higher value on delaying gratification than immediate gratification – the formation of moral capital – which is an inarticulate expression meaning training human beings to enforce a prohibition on involuntary transfers of all kinds. Conservatism includes the argument that we should not fund the expansionary bureaucratic state that out of deterministic necessity subverts our property rights and therefore our freedom, and therefore our ‘character’ – a euphemism for the prohibition on involuntary transfers of all kinds – because it is our universal prohibition on involuntary transfers both within our families and tribes and without, that is the source of western exceptionalism: the high trust society. Our high trust society is unique because we CAN trust others to avoid involuntary transfers, because of the pervasive prohibition on involuntary transfer that we developed under Manorailism by demonstrating fitness needed to obtain land to rent. Partly as a rebellion against the Catholic Church, partly because the church forbid cousin marriage and granted women property rights, in order to break up the tribes and large land holding families. Partly as an ancient indo-european tradition of personal sovereignty in the nobility, which became a status signal, and, thankfully remains a status signal in conservatives. Small homogenous polities are redistributive. Large heterogeneous polities are not. This is because trust DECLINES in heterogeneous polities. And trust DECLINES in heterogeneous polities because of the different signals used by different groups, and the fact that signals in-group are ‘cheaper’ (discounted) that signals across groups with differing signals. A strong state in a small homogenous polity that functions as an extended family and therefore with high redistribution, is entirely possible. But by creating a powerful state in a heterogeneous polity, it becomes necessary and useful for people to compete via extra-market means using the state by seeking redistributions and limited monopoly (legal) rights in order to advance their signaling strategy. (Which is what Dr. Krugman does, daily – advance an alternative strategy. A strategy that he does not recognize is from the Ghetto. And would cause a return to the low trust society. And **IS*** right now, causing a return to the low trust society. Because the low trust society is natural to man. That’s why it exists everywhere but the aristocratic west.
One is articulate if one speaks articulately. Most definitions say ‘speaks clearly’. However, the term “clearly” itself is subjectively inarticulate. To speak articulately is to express concepts as a unified set of causal relations. The problem with any unified set of causal relations is that the set of causal relations a) must be expressed as a series of actions (to avoid the platonic or subjective errors), b) must bridge the gap between different audiences with greater and lesser knowledge. c) and the steps in those causal relations must be short enough that the audience can follow them. Net is to articulate something well requiers we understand it well. and understand others well enough to calculate how we can bridge the gap between those states of understanding.
WHY ARE MOST SELF DESCRIBED LIBERTARIANS UNABLE TO ARTICULATELY DESCRIBE LIBERTARIANISM? There is a reason that the term ‘libertarian’ often cannot be explained by advocates, and it’s the reason social democrats cannot explain marxist theory (which is extremely elaborate.) Libertarianism can refer to: 1) A sentiment (the preference for liberty above all other moral ambitions). 2) A moral conviction that liberty produces ‘goods’. 3) A political preference – which is the minimization or elimination of bureaucracy because all bureaucracy becomes self serving. It can refer to an economic model that suggests liberty will provide the most competitive and wealthiest economy for all. 4) It can refer to a political model, such as Classical Liberalism, Private government or Anarcho Capitalism. 5) It can refer to a specific and rigid philosophical doctrine that states that all exchanges must be voluntary and devoid of fraud theft or violence. And in the classical liberal model, additionally, that transactions may not cause externalities (external involuntary transfers), and that norms and the commons are forms of property we must pay for through forgone opportunities for self gratification. Libertarianism is, aside from marxism, the most analytically rigorous political theory that exists. But whether anarchic or classical liberal, or anything in between, the guiding principle is that all statements about rights can be reduced to statements about property rights, and the only ‘rights’ we can possess are those that are reducible to statements about property rights. So a person who refers to himself as a libertarian, may be correct in that he prefers less government and more personal liberty, for anything from a sentimental desire, to a fully and rationally articulated philosophical, economic and political model. And if someone doesn’t know how to explain what ‘libertarianism is” that’s because you’re talking to people with sentimental attraction rather than something more rationally chosen. Or you’re talking to a set of people who express their sentiment in a broad spectrum from intuitively emotive, to fully rationally articulated. And you’re unable to identify the similarities.
HAVE YOU EVER HAD AN ARGUMENT YOU HAD TO CRAFT OVER A DECADE?
That’s what Einstein meant. It’s hard.
Source date (UTC): 2013-03-05 08:45:00 UTC
You know, I don’t really pay much attention to philosophers outside of economics and politics any longer. But I have to give Rorty another go. Just to see if I’m missing something of value. Every time I re-read a great author I get something new. I can re-read a work by Mises or Hayek a half-dozen times before I feel that I’m not getting something new from it.
My work with Propertarianism assumes that Rorty is right. But I don’t really care to further justify why he’s right (that the discipline of philosophy – epistemology – has been a failure.) It’s pretty obvious that science has solved the problem and will continue to do so. It’s pretty obvious that academic philosophy has become immaterial to society.
This is somewhat odd, because, at least until recently, philosophy has effectively been the religion of our upper classes since ancient greece. (Which is why its in the religion section of the book store. 🙂
But the art of philosophy: which is to reorganize and reorder our perceptions of causal relations, and the values that we should attach to those causal relations, is still a worthy discipline. We are too reliant on norms and flights of fantasy about ourselves not to have philosophy at our disposal.
And really, it is far better to conduct our political warfare in philosophical debates than it is to in religious conflict, or open war and revolution.
What I do care about, is that **the mind is a property engine**. Saying it’s a “difference engine” is kind of cute, and politically correct. But the differences it calculates are differences in property. If property is to be understood in it’s full scope: as humans actually use it. Rather than the narrow legal or philosophical variants of private property.
Source date (UTC): 2013-02-22 11:15:00 UTC