Well, the purpose of Propertarian Constitution is to not only to eliminate falsehood and immorality in public speech, but to de-financialize the economy, and de-politicize the population, so that we return to the production of eugenic norms rather than dysgenic institutional enforcement in opposition to those norms. The opposition does not want that of course. They want Power of Dysgenia.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 12:33:00 UTC
THE VIA NEGATIVA OF LAW (AND THE METHOD IN GENERAL)
—“Curt: By stating it’s law that made western virtues, are you not only offering half of the story here? “—
—“…If I see someone being raped,
but do nothing to help….”—
Then by law, “You failed to remove the bad”.
Incremental Suppression: the discovery and canonization of ‘bads’ (violations of reciprocity) by use of the one law of reciprocity (tort), the jury, and an independent professional judiciary, provides the most rapid means possible of continuous incremental suppressions of free riding, parasitism, and predation
The Natural Law of Reciprocity: the demand for Productive, Fully Informed, Warrantied, Voluntary Transfer of Demonstrated Interests (property), Free of Imposition of Costs upon the Demonstrated Interests (property) of others by externality.
—“..confusion..”—
Remove the bad: Every man a warrior, sheriff, juror, legislator of the one natural law of reciprocity.
—“You’re conflating “good””—
Anything that is not bad is good. Bads can be known. The preferential, the good (reciprocal preferential), are preferences. Whether they are preference or good is an opinion. Whether they are ‘bad’ and a violation of reciprocity is not an opinion. It is a fact (by Logical Necessity).
—“Sacrifices”–
No animal, including humans, demonstrates altruism, only kin selection, option buying, status acquisition (opportunity gain and discount), and reciprocity (debt) payment against status loss (and therefore opportunity loss). We cast this self interest as virtuous in order to acquire more of such behavior by grant of status to heroic display.
—“…being good…”—
Man is, by all evidence, amoral – preying upon or cooperating with as suits his self interest. Given a long time frame, it is in one’s self interest to cooperate because of the outsized returns on cooperation versus predation and boycott. One is ‘virtuous’ because all ‘virtues’ decrease the opportunity costs of cooperation and provide discounts on those higher returns. The fact that we attribute status (pay for with opportunity discounts [trust, recommendation, referrals], is merely compensation (investment) in the production of reciprocity by those with most evidence of it.
|WESTERN CIVILIZATION| Transcendence (Evolutionary Velocity) via Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth and Duty, The judiciary of the natural law, and the consequential markets in everything. Where there the militia constitutions a private partnership and there is no state to perform the function of insurer of last resort, every man demonstrate reciprocity by performing the function of insurer of last resort.
QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 10:10:00 UTC
THE LAST FEW SHOVEL-FULLS IN THE GRAVE OF POSTMODERNISM
1) I’m happy to go into depth on this subject but the argument is quite simple, and was put forward by a commenter:
–“Postmodernists: question who controls knowledge and where it comes from”–
Yes, that is a postmodernist (sophist).
2) A Scientist: Truth (coherent, consistent, correspondent, rational, reciprocal, limited, and complete) is power independent. Either you are engaging in full reciprocity correspondent with reality or you are not.
3) Pomo is an attempt to circumvent (conduct a fraud) by casting power as arbitrary, truth as arbitrary, reciprocity as arbitrary when they are necessary, and a presumption of an arbitrary good (equality rather than evolutionary survival) as justification for the fraud.
4) Hicks’ argument, which you did not understand, is that POMO is an evolution of the (Marxist) means by which to circumvent reciprocity (science, economics, and law) by claiming power (science/truth, law/power, economics/necessity) is sentimental and psychological (arbitrary).
5) My argument, a bit more articulate that Hicks’, is that this attempt at fraud is not only from Marxism to Postmodernism, but from the long history of Pilpul/Critique, Abrahamic Law, Platonism, Abrahamic Monotheism, Abrahamic Theology, and Continental Philosophy (Rousseau/Kant)
6) And that under Pilpul(Justificationism) and Critique (Straw Manning, disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossiping, rallying) any internal consistency (constant relations) can be argued (story or fraud constructed) to violate correspondence, reciprocity, limits, and completeness.
7) And that under Falsificationism (Survival) from tests of coherence, consistency, correspondence, existential possibility, rationality, reciprocity, limits and completeness (what we test in court) such Frauds (Lies to cover Thefts) are exposed. Leaving only truth candidates.
8) So while you merely made a list of STATED INTENTIONS, as scientists (and jurists) we measure the form of argument (lying) and the changes in state (thefts), and the means, motives and opportunity used (criminal liability) not the STATED INTENTION (lies) of the actor.
9) One is not liable for his intentions but for his consequences. One acts given the resources available(means), the institutions available (opportunity) to produce reciprocity (meritocracy) and therefore continuous eugenic evolution (survival from competition) or the opposite.
10) Ergo, Marx (econ/history), Boas (Anthro/Soc.), Freud(Psych), Cantor (math platonism), Frankfurt (Norms,Traditions,Habits,Institutions), the French Postmodernists (Reason Itself) sought to use the ancient techniques of overloading (lying) by pseudoscience (marx et al) and ….
11) … sophism (Derrida, Foucault, Rorty, Heidegger) to construct a disinformation campaign w/Critique: poisoning the well with a straw man criticism) in order to perpetuate a fraud(theft) by attacking Poincare, Maxwell,Darwin,Menger, Spencer, Nietzsche, and the Eugenicists …
12) … who were seeking to restate the successful group evolutionary strategy of western civilization (transcendence: by adaptive velocity ) using Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth and Duty, Jury and Tort Law, and Markets (empirical evidence of reciprocity) in everything …
13) … including association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons, polities, and defense(war), in scientific terms (The One Language of Truthful Speech, under the One Law of Reciprocity).
14) Because it was this group strategy (today called “OODA Loops” in military, and “innovation” in economics, technology, and science), that allowed western civ in the ancient and modern worlds, to drag mankind kicking and screaming out of superstition, ignorance, poverty, starvation, hard labor, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, brutality, arbitrary rule, tyranny, and the vicissitudes of nature, in a universe hostile to life.
15) So your ‘list of excuses-of-intent’ by stating ‘quotes of intent’ are just attempts to perpetuate the dysgenic, defeatist, destructive, fraud, of using sophisticated lies (sophisms, supernaturalisms, pseudosciences) to appeal to sentiments as a means of obtaining power.
16) When your use of that power, as we have seen, is to destroy the modern world as the abrahamists (jews, christians, and muslims) destroyed the great civilizations of the ancient world, costing us more than a thousand years of dark age, and a billion deaths …
17) … for no other purpose than pursuing dysgenia, destruction of capital, the manufacture of ignorance, in the 3500 year struggle of the primitive peoples (equalitarian poverty and ignorance) against the advancing peoples (meritocratic wealth and knowledge).
18) So I am not only calling you and other POMO’s Frauds, Sophists, and Thieves, but the Enemy of Mankind and the bringers of destruction, ignorance, poverty, dysgenia, and suffering. The only equality is poverty. The only wealth is differences (hierarchy). Because it is by hierarchy (Pareto, or Power Laws) that we can construct the voluntary organization of research, invention, investment, production, distribution, and trade, using the selfish incentives of man with the limited knowledge at his disposal, to seize the optimum opportunity at his disposal, such that together we defeat the dark forces of time and ignorance – despite none of us knowing more than a fraction of the existential knowledge we all possess.
19) And like I said, if you studied Physics, Genetic and Cultural Differences, Political Economy, and Law (the complete scientific method), then you would understand such things – instead of reading Sophomoric Political Fantasy Fiction.
20) Transcendence (Evolution), by Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, The Natural Law of Tort, An Independent Judiciary (Nomocracy), and the only option remaining under all of the above: Markets for voluntary cooperation in all aspects of life.
— closing —
It is a well researched bit of knowledge that we claim a lie is performed by intent, but that we judge whether we lie by our preferences and cognitive biases. So we lie on behalf of our intuitions, not on behalf of the truth or falsehood of our statements.
Ergo, we lie not just by intention, but by failing to perform due diligence against lying by intuition in the absence of intention. We are not only liable for our intended actions, but failures of due diligence before taking actions.
We all self insure ourselves against falsehood.
Some of us specialize in the fraud of escaping self insurance, by escaping due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.
— differences —
Doolittle (law), Taleb (statistics), Hicks (Intellectual history)
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 10:01:00 UTC
IS FINNISH EDUCATIONAL SUPERIORITY DUE TO MORE TRUTH?
—“The U.S. and Finland both lean heavily towards the truth and directness, but what constitutes truth and directness varies greatly across cultures. Whereas Americans are comfortable taking liberty with the truth when it comes to marketing, selling and getting the business, to a Finn it can sound like lies. You see, the Finns believe that their words are their commitments. They establish their credibility by understating their abilities, and delivering what they promise. Period.
As Stuart’s examples illustrate, it is easy for people with the best of intentions to still be misunderstood — and even branded as liars. When we don’t know a person’s beliefs, values and biases, how can we be certain that what we heard was what they meant? However, one thing is certain; the more we understand how culture influences behavior in business dealings, the less inclined we are to assume we’re being deceived.”—
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-24 20:54:00 UTC
You didn’t come close to making an argument – just made excuses. I think you should address my response. It’s not worth hick’s time to answer that kind of ‘critique’ (Straw man). You can either make a scientific argument (not one of ‘intentions’ or ‘meaning’) or you can’t.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-24 20:43:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055198149898395651
Reply addressees: @WorMartiN @PhilosophyCuck
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054975670453972992
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054975670453972992
THE THING IS, THAT WN IS A CLAN PREFERENCE, WHILE NATIONALISM AND ETHNOCENTRISM IS A UNIVERSAL SCIENTIFIC, ETHICAL, AND MORAL, TRUTH
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-24 20:33:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055195720062550016
October 24th, 2018 9:00 PM https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027716300178
LYING DESPITE TELLING THE TRUTH Highlights •We defend a subjective view on lying that does not require objective falsity. •Four experiments suggest that the subjective view fits with most people’s intuitions. •Conversational pragmatics can explain findings favoring an objective view. •Implications for research about people’s concepts are discussed. Abstract According to the standard definition of lying an utterance counts as a lie if the agent believes the statement to be false. Thus, according to this view it is possible that a lie states something that happens to be true. This subjective view on lying has recently been challenged by Turri and Turri (2015) who presented empirical evidence suggesting that people only consider statements as lies that are objectively false (objective view). We argue that the presented evidence is in fact consistent with the standard subjective view if conversational pragmatics is taken into account. Three experiments are presented that directly test and support the subjective view. An additional experiment backs up our pragmatic hypothesis by using the uncontroversial case of making a promise.
October 24th, 2018 9:00 PM https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027716300178
LYING DESPITE TELLING THE TRUTH Highlights •We defend a subjective view on lying that does not require objective falsity. •Four experiments suggest that the subjective view fits with most people’s intuitions. •Conversational pragmatics can explain findings favoring an objective view. •Implications for research about people’s concepts are discussed. Abstract According to the standard definition of lying an utterance counts as a lie if the agent believes the statement to be false. Thus, according to this view it is possible that a lie states something that happens to be true. This subjective view on lying has recently been challenged by Turri and Turri (2015) who presented empirical evidence suggesting that people only consider statements as lies that are objectively false (objective view). We argue that the presented evidence is in fact consistent with the standard subjective view if conversational pragmatics is taken into account. Three experiments are presented that directly test and support the subjective view. An additional experiment backs up our pragmatic hypothesis by using the uncontroversial case of making a promise.
THE THING IS, THAT WN IS A CLAN PREFERENCE, WHILE NATIONALISM AND ETHNOCENTRISM IS A UNIVERSAL SCIENTIFIC, ETHICAL, AND MORAL, TRUTH
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-24 16:33:00 UTC
October 23rd, 2018 10:08 AM A HARD CONCEPT TO INTERNALIZE: VIA-NEGATIVA LYING [S]cience and Law are via-negativa disciplines. We know truth by eliminating what is false. We know legal, ethical, moral, and good, by eliminating what is irreciprocal, unethical, immoral, criminal, and bad. Science is the means by which we perform due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, suggestion, fictionalism, and deceit – leaving only truth candidates remaining. So, when we say someone is LYING it does not require that they via-positiva relied upon intent. Instead, we require via-negativa, that we take involuntary responsibility for performing due diligence against spreading a falsehood suggestion or deceit. So via-negativa, someone is lying if they distribute a falsehood suggestion or deceit, regardless of whether they intend to. This is a higher standard of suppression of falsehood – one that is necessary to prevent the spread of falsehoods. Because we have been defeated once by the falsehood of monotheism, and the same people are trying to defeat us with mono-classism, and monopoly. We are the only people to create a market between classes and ideas, and everyone else produced a monopoly equalitarianism, or a monopoly hierarchy, rather than the markets that have made our successes possible. People always resist paying the costs of incremental increases in suppression of opportunity for free riding, conspiracy, deception, fraud, theft and violence, just as they resist paying all costs of creating and maintaining the commons: physical, normative, and informational. That does not mean that we are always and everywhere paying those costs in exchange for the most valuable commons we can produce: good information, truthful speech, the trust, economic velocity, and innovation that results from it. Because the only way a small, high-individual-investment, superior population can compete is by producing the economy necessary to pay for the superior technological means ( and arms) by which to compensate for their numbers. Cheers. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine