Theme: Truth

  • SUMMARY OF JFG/DOOLITTLE ON THE MOLYNEUX DEBATE That was fun. I always enjoy JF.

    SUMMARY OF JFG/DOOLITTLE ON THE MOLYNEUX DEBATE

    That was fun. I always enjoy JF. The public isn’t used to seeing how philosophy, law, science and math are done between practitioners – tediously precisely. I realize this kind of thing is difficult for the audience. And JF has to keep the audience engaged. Between my long expositions and jf’s audience representation it required a little cat herding on my part. That said, I think we got there.

    SUMMARY:

    (a) we are born with a distribution of moral preferences (Demand for treatment from others, and resistance to demands from other)s,

    (b) we exercise our moral preferences in a market competition for cooperation wherein we discover cooperation (sexual, social, economic, political, military) with people that satisfy our moral preferences,

    (c) groups of people increase in a division of labor and as they do so converge on moral norms (requirements for cooperation) that allow them to cooperatively succeed in their geographic, demographic, economic, institutional, and military conditions – and some of these they institute as laws (punishments for violations)

    (d) across human groups we converge on the same underlying rule within each of those different markets (e) that rule is reciprocity that preserves cooperation and prevents retaliation, within the limits of proportionality that cause members to defect.

    (e) but moral rules are only useful in creating and preserving cooperation and the outsized returns on cooperation,

    (f) and cooperation must be more beneficial than parasitism(free riding, black markets, rent seeking, corruption etc), and predation (conquest).

    (g) all human organizations of all kinds seek the minimum morality, maximum free riding, rent seeking, and corruption until there is insufficient free capital to incentivize adjustment to shocks, and the civilization collapses

    (h) so there is no moral rule outside of the utility of cooperation because ‘moral’ can only mean ‘within the limits of reciprocity and proportionality among those of us cooperating’. There is no morality in war.

    (i) the only universal moral rule is reciprocity – do not impose costs, including risks, directly or indirectly upon the demonstrated interests of others in your group.

    (j) there are no possible via positiva universal moral statements. Anything that is not immoral (reciprocal) is moral. People who claim otherwise are engaging in an act of fraud by claiming their preference must be paid for by others irreciprocally. They claim debts or injustice when there is none.

    CLOSING

    As such, JF was correct at the personal level in that all individuals demonstrate variation in moral demand of others;;

    And SM was half right at the socio-political level, and half right at the universal level, but stated the via positiva preference for a good instead of via negativa prohibition on the bad.

    In this sense both parties, adopting ideal types, rather than the use of series, talked past each other.

    P-law makes use of disambiguation through “operationalism, competition, and serialization’, and relies on the logic of incentives, supply and demand.

    We convert psychological , social, legal and political concepts into economic terms to take advantage of the minimization of error that results, at the expense of more reasoning and less intuiting.

    -Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-01 14:57:00 UTC

  • THE DIFFICULT IDEA TO GET ACROSS (important) When I say “the big problem is swit

    THE DIFFICULT IDEA TO GET ACROSS

    (important)

    When I say “the big problem is switching people from idealism (homogenous bias) under which each person seeks whatever bias fits his, to realism (heterogeneous bias) that is aware of the market competition. In other words, monopoly is endemic in western moral thinking bcause we’ve been homogenous since our beginnings. So we have no means of defense against the LIE of the value of diversity.

    This is yet another example of the f—king stupidity of libertarian tropes (sophistry).

    If you build high trust high value commons, then diversity increases transaction costs that all ancestors worked to reduce. So the reason we seek SOME diversity is to increase novelty because we seek to hyper-consume cheap novelty (consumption that destroys commons) rather than expensive novelty (innovation, continued capitalization of commons).

    I don’t know how to explain this more simply. I would appreciate anyone who could.

    Leftists spend down inheritance to feed herd instinct for numbers.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-01 14:52:00 UTC

  • HOW DOES P-LAW DIFFER FROM PHILOSOPHY? (core) You could call P-Law Operational P

    HOW DOES P-LAW DIFFER FROM PHILOSOPHY?

    (core)

    You could call P-Law Operational Philosophy in the sequence of syllogistic reason > rationalism > set logic > operational logic > equilibrial logic (economic logic)

    0) uses series (supply demand) vs ideals.

    1) uses operational vs set logic

    2) users ternary logic not binary (undecidable, truthful, false)

    3) uses satisfaction of demand for infallibility not ideal truth

    4) tests for deceits not just errors

    5) tests for irreciprocity not just ‘good’

    6) tests for costs not just internal consistency

    7) tests for closure by reality instead of just non-contradiction

    8) tests for limits and full accounting.

    9) tests for warranty of due diligence, liability, restitutability.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-01 14:52:00 UTC

  • RECIPROCITY (FULL VERSION) The natural law is (+)Sovereignty and (-)Reciprocity,

    RECIPROCITY (FULL VERSION)

    The natural law is (+)Sovereignty and (-)Reciprocity, in display word and deed, including reciprocity in speech (truthful speech) regardless of cost to the status(dominance, competence hierarch), within the limits of proportionality (in group defection) within the limits of the utility of cooperation (out groups).

    “Within the limits of the utility of cooperation.”

    There is no ideal. There are no ideals.

    There is only what satisfies demand for infallibility.

    FULL VERSION

    Limiting our display word and deed to:

    – Fully informed (truthful and complete);

    – Regardless of cost to the status, competence, or dominance hierarchy.

    – Productive and;

    – Voluntary transfer (or exchange, or imposition of costs upon);

    – The Demonstrated interests of Others;

    – Either directly or indirectly (by externality)

    – Within the limit of incentive for in-group defection;

    – Within The Limit of the Utility of future out-group Cooperation;

    – And liable and warrantied, within the limits of restitutability;

    – Eliminating the incentive of retaliation and retaliation cycles,

    – And imposition of costs upon the commons of trust by which others cooperate.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-01 14:36:00 UTC

  • But is UPB in fact a test he claims it to be? It’s not

    But is UPB in fact a test he claims it to be?
    It’s not.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-29 18:26:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244330189888380935

    Reply addressees: @LLaddon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244303058487648257

  • I wonder if Taleb has come to the end of his journey yet? (a) there is no via po

    I wonder if Taleb has come to the end of his journey yet? (a) there is no via positiva method of prediction, (b) the only defense for skin in the game is involuntary warranty and liability for everyone across the full sequence of actions. (c) anti-fragility is constructed by Law.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-29 15:27:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244285112700866565

  • RESPONSE TO STEFAN MOLYNEUX Sigh. Let’s try an adult conversation, ok? –“Act on

    RESPONSE TO STEFAN MOLYNEUX

    Sigh. Let’s try an adult conversation, ok?

    –“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”–Kant

    —“Act only such that you would prefer the behavior universal”— SM, UPB

    You seem to think I’m criticizing the Kantian imperative as a test of criminal behaviors. I’m not. I’m saying its insufficient and as a consequence a false promise, baiting into hazard – not that it’s false. I’m saying its half true and because it’s half true the consequences is harmful. The libertarian program baits well meaning fools into hazard just as others are baited into Judaism, christianity and islam, and neoconservatism, marxism, socialism, feminism, postmodernism, and HBD Denialism.

    I’m not saying KI, UPB, NAP are false.

    I’m saying they’re worse – they’re evil.

    0. MORAL

    1. FAILURE

    2. CAUSE

    0. MORAL

    a) |COST| (+)Evil < Bad < Criminal < Unethical < Immoral < Amoral > Moral > Ethical > Good > Righteous(+)

    b) |MORAL MARKET| Reproductive Moral Bias(Sex) > Genetic Moral Bias(Personality) > Personal Market Value Bias(Class) > Personal moral bias(Strategy) > group moral norms > traditional moral indoctrination > Legal Rules > Inter group moral necessity, evolutionary (survival) necessity.

    c) |MORAL DEMAND|: Positiva: rules for the creation and preservation of cooperation. Negativa:rules for the avoidance of loss of cooperation, incentive for retaliation, and incentive for retaliation cycles.

    d) |MORAL: Definition|: Satisfaction of Demand for Infallibility by Reciprocity, within the limits of proportionality, within the population of cooperative utility, within the possibility of escaping retaliation.

    1 – FAILURE

    Repeating the kantian imperative tells us nothing that kant didn’t tell us better. Even such, let’s test it. Where does this rule fail?

    “I am Genghis Khan. I prefer everyone fight, r-ape, murder, pillage, burn, so that only the best of us survive.”

    “I am Sayyid Qutb. I prefer everyone devote his life to pure islam, and to conduct war of conquest upon all those who do not.”

    “I am Karl Marx. I prefer everyone obtain the proceeds of production according to his needs”

    “I am Murray Rothbard. I prefer everyone circumvent production of commons, and maximize privatization.”

    “I am Betty Friedan. I prefer everyone adopt the female bias, objective, and behavior.”

    “I am Jaques Derrida. I prefer we all practice universal relativism so that together we may obtain power by prohibiting claims of truth and merit”

    And that’s within the meaning of ‘universal’. Then we get to the obvious distinction between those who do not consider others the same:

    “I am Je of Apinajé. I prefer every one of my men fight and kill as many Aparai so that the Apinaje will have more land, and we do not fear the Aparai.”

    “I am Dumnorix I prefer every one of us kill the other’s men, enslave the women, take the metal, cattle, and lands until all land is ours”

    And that before we get to those behaviors that are universally preferable because the prohibition of them is universally unpreferable:

    – Reproduction? (dysgenia)

    – Redistribution? (proportionality)

    – Free Riding? Rent Seeking.

    – Competition in norms traditions religions (institutions)

    – Lying? Fictionalisms? False Promise? Virtue Signaling? (disinformation)

    – Cheating?

    – Price gouging?

    – Blackmail?

    – What about Baiting into Hazard? All monotheistic religion, Marxism, postmodernism, feminism, make use of baiting into hazard.

    “SOURCES OF IGNORANCE”

    Sophistry is a source of ignorance. Philosophical rationalism is a source of ignorance. Theology is a source of ignorance. There are no shortcuts to knowledge, You pay for them.

    You can choose the truth: Action: Law, Testimony, Science, Mathematics. You can choose sophistry (philosophy), you can choose supernatural sophistry(Theology) or you can choose pseudoscience.

    You can choose – but some of us will hold you accountable for the harm you do.

    2 – CAUSE

    WHY?

    The kantian imperative (and the upb, and NAP) test only the reductive and trivial. it tests Crime maybe, ethics less so, morality not at all, consequence is intentionally off the table. There is no disagreement on the obvious. But there is no need to justify the obvious either. It’s the non-obvious that is the source of political conflict.

    We are, our lives are, far more affected by political conflict than we are by the obvious – which is no more difficult than the silver rule for the outgroup plus the golden rule for the ingroup.

    We all exist in a continuous market competition between the legal, normative, and interpersonal limitations on our irreciprocity (free riding, parasitism, predation. across the criminal, unethical, immoral, and evil) and humans demonstrably practice the minimum avoidance of the criminal, unethical, and immoral. We signal morality to generate opportunity within our preferred moral biases. But we deliver on that signal as little as we can get away with without retaliation.

    APPEAL TO INTUITION

    UPB, KI, Rothbardianism, neoconservatism, Marxism, socialism, postmodernism, feminism, and hbd-denialism all appeal to our intuitions – the animal. They do not provide us with decidability.

    HOW

    SUGGESTION AND ARBITRARY SUBSTITUTION

    So what door do the KI, UPB, NAP leave open? Suggestion and arbitrary substitution.

    The incompleteness (Half Truth) leaves open the door for suggestion under which the well meaning fool presumes he agrees, but by agreement prohibits him from further knowledge gain. The more repetition of this half truth the more damned he becomes by the trap of feeling confidence in explanatory power that is only half true and blinds him to the full truth – which is often the very opposite of the false promise of the knowledge he presumes to have.

    Because KI, UPB, and NAP leave open the door to arbitrary substitution, they are limited to the trivial, and fail to solve the meaningful.

    This is the same problem I had with hoppe: everything after the justification is fine. But the justification was ridiculous. instead of hanging his hat on his application he hung it on his justification. Same problem I have with your work. It’s weak. The whole libertarian, ancap, reactionary program is weak.

    Humans converge on that imperative within the limits of their geographic, demographic, conomic, military, institutional, familial, and cultural method of organizing.

    THERE ARE NO ADVANCED THINKERS IN LIBERTARIANISM.

    Why? It fails.

    It’s just another version of pilpul

    UPB, KI, and Rothbardianism are false – it’s worse. THEY”RE EVIL. Insidiously so. Insidiously evil. They prey on western man and woman’s high trust.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-29 15:11:00 UTC

  • THROWING DOWN THE GAUNTLET TO MOLYNEUX – OUT OF NECESSITY NOT WANT But is UPB in

    THROWING DOWN THE GAUNTLET TO MOLYNEUX – OUT OF NECESSITY NOT WANT

    But is UPB in fact a test he claims it to be?

    It’s not.

    —“People expect too much from UPB, it merely demonstrates that rape, theft, etc. and other asymmetric actions can’t be UPB. … In that sense it is naive, as it accomplishes very little. And in the mean time Stefan has failed to expand it, which we all sorta wanted.”—@LLaddon

    UPB like Rothbardianism is a case of baiting into hazard. Nothing meaningful is answered by UPB or The Kantian Imperative. Worse, it’s open to substitution. So UPB, like KI and Rothbardianism isn’t false. It’s worse. It’s evil.

    How is that for a repositioning?

    So ‘people expect too much’ of not being lead by the pied piper? People expect to much of not being told heroin is addictive?

    UPB, KI, Rothbardian Libertarianism are just another false promise, baiting well meaning fools into hazard, advancing the strategy of the enemy using the enemy’s favorite technique: sewing conflict by false promise.

    (Under P-Law you are accountable for a failure of due diligence against baiting into hazard.)

    Moly did nothing Kant didn’t do better. Kant gave us Marx who gave us Adorno-Fromm, Derrida, Friedan, Rothbard – and Molyneux. Continental rationalism is just jewish pilpul via Christianity

    So I was trying (for two years now) to avoid doing to Molyneux what I did to mises, rothbard, Friedman and Hoppe. Because I wanted to preserve his utility in shifting the well meaning fools.

    But. I guess, I’m just going to have to take out his foundations entirely instead.

    Sophistry is anti-european. The Law is the Law, Testimony is produced by science. Science is the process of discovery. And Mathematics is its measure.

    No more sophistry.

    Philosophy – in the sense f philosophical rationalism – is dead.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-29 15:02:00 UTC

  • I learn all the time when we get to that level of precision. It’s how we all lea

    I learn all the time when we get to that level of precision. It’s how we all learn. The problem is finding people you can get to that level of precision with. Often it’s really just differences in estimates of cost or possibility of achieving mutually desired ends.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-29 14:44:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244274125566328835

    Reply addressees: @LLaddon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244271561764462594

  • HHH took argumentation ethics from Habermas (Marist). He used Kantian rationalis

    HHH took argumentation ethics from Habermas (Marist). He used Kantian rationalism. He used Rothbardian Ethics. And he tried (understandably) to recreate the German Free Cities project, like Rothbard did the Jewish Pale, and Me the British Empire.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-29 14:23:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244268955507789825

    Reply addressees: @LLaddon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244267109573636097