Knowing is an Experience, Not an Action

[K]nowing is an experience. Constructing an existence, logical, or mathematical, proof is an action. We can demonstrate them. That is not to say that they are true, it is to say that they are proofs. If we have constructed proofs, we may err, but it is very hard to lie. And even if one does, err, we need not hold him accountable for his error.

Speaking truthfully, constructing a proof, and possessing the ultimate truth are very different things. I can however speak truthfully, and I can construct an existence proof, and that is the most that I can do. I can know those things even if I cannot know if I possess the truth. So what does that do for me? I doesn’t tell me anything about whether I possess the ultimate truth, but it does allow me to speak truthfully to the best of my ability – and that is all that we can ask of anyone. Because it is all that is possible for anyone.

Conversely, we must ask it of anyone who seeks to place an argument into the commons the result of which would subject others to harm.


Poincaré on Cantor's Mysticism

[P]oincaré rejected the later foundational work of Cantor, saying that

—“There is no actual infinity, the Cantorians have forgotten that, and they have fallen into contradiction. It is true that Cantorism rendered services, but that was when it was applied to a real problem whose terms were clearly defined, and we could walk safely. Logisticians as Cantorians have forgotten. (Poincaré 1908: 212–213; 1913b: 484)”—


Criticism and Critique: Control Without Contribution

[A]re Criticism and Critique nothing but justifications for people who cannot invent? Isn’t that what the record of history tells us?


Damn. Yes. That’s the answer: Control. Power. Without contribution. Control without contribution.

From James Santagata
[I] wish C&C were only used as justifications for those who cannot invent. But it’s actually used as a weapon, as a compliance technique to force a “validation seeking / approval seeking” frame onto those who do create…By accepting this frame, the creator actually gives up his power to those who cannot create. So what is the most societally beneficial manner to critique? How about this one: “Critique by creating.” – Michelangelo

From Karl Brooks
[I]n a scenario where the critic intends destruction of the invention, AND the critic has gained superior standing, so he is able to not only condemn but even to vandalize with impunity: What are the inventor’s options besides attempts at negotiating from weakness against an implacable foe?

    1. He can marshal advocates who have equal standing with the critic who are willing to recognize and champion the invention as beneficial to everyone, including the critic.

    2. He can marshal advocates from within his (weaker) standing to directly attack the critic.

    3. He can capitulate, allowing his invention to be destroyed, perhaps with the hope that many others will miss his invention enough to dethrone the critic.

    4. He can capitulate and contribute only inventions that meet with the critic’s approval, adopting a fatalist attitude towards lost benefits.

    5. He can capitulate and cease to invent within the critic’s view, operating underground for like minded people.

    6. He can cease altogether.

I suggest the first option.

Option 0: he can take a fraud to court for fraud. This reduces transaction costs for prosecution, and increases transaction costs of misrepresentation.


Could We Use Insurance For Public Speech?

[I]f one had to be insured to issue public speech (sort of like homeowners insurance – everyone had it) then we would rapidly evolve classes in making public speech, which would demonstrate how to witness (truth telling). (Heinlein suggested something of this order.) Now some speech advocates theft, and some does not. Some purports to convey truths, and some does not. This is essentially restoring the greek discipline of rhetoric in an age where media replicates faster than greek era human voices could quell. This is also much closer to anglo saxon law. Why is it that I an produce a ladder that subjects people to harm and am accountable, but if I advocate a political policy that causes millions of deaths, I am not accountable?

(as usual, I am suggesting a common law (property rights), universal standing, and private insurance based solution to regulation, with fairly high confidence that the public, insurers and producers will seek practical means of solving problems without authoritarian intervention.)


Propertarianism Leads Us To Contractual Government

[W]ith private property rights, universal standing, the common (polycentric) law, shareholder dividends (what we think of as direct redistribution, but is constructed as a dividend), what policy is there for us to advocate? If we can’t justify stealing from one another by force of law then what can we try to do, without majority rule?

Well, a lot of commons, a lot of contracts, but no thefts. Propertarianism leads us to contractual government. We separate the law, from our contracts. Our law remains constant but we construct voluntary contracts for whatever we need to. Contracts expire, have terms and conditions, and laws do not.


My Work Is Not Done? A Cure But Not A Cause?

[W]ell, I guess I’m not done. Macdonald and Duchesne explain what happened, who did it, and how they did it, even why they did it.

But neither of them explain why we were vulnerable to it, other than we are less group-ish than other peoples with higher trust, (probably because of outbreeding.)

So our outbreeding created trust, which allowed us to be invaded by people who were not honest, did not practice trust, practiced parasitism,

In other words, is an aggressive parasitic people more successful than a high trust outbred productive people?



Why Blame Competitors Rather Than Blaming Yourself For Failing To Compete?

[T]he reason you are conquered is that you are weak enough to be. Why are you weak enough to be conquered? Fix what is wrong with your civilization, rather than criticize your attacker. Understand why you are weak enough to be attacked.

We failed because we are altruistic. Not entirely, but more than anyone else.

Our high trust has a down side. And we just experienced a century of it.