—“If we view liberal humanism as a political religion, leftists are Anglicans and libertarians are a Quakerish sect, defending the beliefs of the majority but in a purer form, and only dangerous to the status quo in that they are not willing to actually defend it, or expand its dominion except through peaceful conversion.”—Waylon Hill
YOU DON”T HAVE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. 😉
—1) From where does a polity gain more rights or powers under Natural Law than the individual has in the first place?—
a) a right is a demand upon others. one does not intrinsically possess rights, one intrinsically requires them. Just as one does not intrinsically possess property he acquires it.
You can REQUIRE, and DEMAND others not impose costs upon your possessions, but you cannot possess property in fact, or property rights in fact, without a contract for those rights in some form, and a polity or institution to insure them on your behalf, and you on theirs. Else we would not have this discussion.
b) natural law provides decidability in matters of conflict regardless of the difference in opinions of the individuals in that conflict.
c) using decidability one can judicially discover and outlaw the new means of parasitism, and the new forms of property, that we consistently invent.
d) so regardless of initial presumptions the scope of our property rights can increase indefinitely under natural law regardless of the opinions of others (or ourselves). Ergo, under natural law, no matter what we expend our efforts and resources upon, we are able to convert it into property (exclusion of others from its use, taking, or consumption), as long as we do so without violating the exclusion others ask of us via reciprocity.
—“2) How is productivity quantified in your system of validation for voluntary agreements and their externalities?”—
a) preamble: i) possessions provide us with agency. ii) cooperation provides us with multipliers upon our agency. iii) it appears that we cannot compete (survive) without the agency provided by the transformation of personally insured possessions into cooperatively insured property. iv) And it is difficult to compete and survive without the agency provided by external cooperation (cooperation at scale via markets). v) ergo we must cooperate to produce property rights that provide us with agency, multipliers, and greater multipliers of the market. vi) and we must possess a means of decidability upon the scope of property to be insured (a property right), before we can cooperatively insure property.
b) conversely, i) humans retaliate against impositions of costs upon the investments they have made, in order to obtain an interest in some good, service, information, or association. ii) humans retaliate more severely than the original cost imposed upon them as a means of dissuading future such violations. iii) we evolved these behaviors precisely because of the necessity of cooperation in our survival, competition, and prospering, in relation to nature and the competition of other groups. iv) and we evolved the institutions of property, property rights, and law, to prevent cycles of retaliation (feuds) that were endemic to human groups prior to the invention of the prevention of retaliation by the institutions of property, property rights, and law. The law – our first ‘commons’ – evolved to preserve cooperation and the benefits of cooperation. v) and humans organize to embrace familial generosity, in-group reciprocity, and out group cooperation, competition, or war, by the importance of cooperation in each of those domains of action.
c) one cannot quantify changes in state only qualify changes in state – or we cannot yet do so with the instrumentation we have available to us today. And while we can qualify changes in state, we do not need to qualify, positive changes in state. We need only know if there have been negative changes in state – whether someone will retaliate. And those changes in state are limited to property in toto (demonstrated property – property in fact). That which we have obtained through homesteading, transformation of possessions, or exchange. And to prevent retaliation, we must limit ourselves to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges limited to productive externalities.
d) because when we limit ourselves as such, no possible retaliation can be instigated. cooperation is preserved. the fruits of cooperation are preserved: possessions, property, property rights, and markets.
e) we do not choose the scope of property – others choose to invest their energies in obtaining interests by bringing changes in state of the universe into being through their actions. This interest serves to exclude you from imposition of costs upon that interest. And they choose to retaliate against impositions of costs upon them. So while we express via-positiva our necessity of a commons of property rights, the via negativa restatement of that demand, is that we seek to preserve cooperation and its fruits, by violating the terms of cooperation: the imposition of costs.
The Propertarian Institute
STOP DENYING WHO WE ARE
I mean, you can choose: Western sovereignty by which we and humanity profit from our incremental transformation of man from impulsive animal into human with agency in the pursuit of sovereignty for all, or the Semitic, Persian profit from the expansion of the underclass and the continuous devolution of man. Or the Chinese authoritarian version that seems to always end in stagnation.
Only one of these models has served to raise man out of ignorance and poverty in the bronze, iron, and steel, ages,
That’s the west.
Stop denying who we are.
We are the people who domesticated the animal man for fun and profit by breeding for agency, such that with agency we can produce a population of sovereigns – equal among the gods.
Every group of humans can take this strategy if they choose.
—“Up until now everybody has gotten it completely backwards: free will is not rebelling against nature and escaping natural cause-and-effect, but it is exactly the opposite. By becoming part of the cause-and-effect chains and inserting ourselves into them, we gain agency.”—Moritz Bierling
UNIVERSALISM AND PARTICULARISM ARE STRATEGIES
I don’t think universalism has to be ‘taught’. It’s just the rational choice when you are wealthy enough to gamble on the potential to increase the scale of cooperation. Conversely, non-cooperation in a condition of wealth where you forgo opportunities for cooperation is costly. These are evident in all walks of life.
I think universalism arises in periods of empire (colonialism) and declines in periods of contraction – and now that the gains of the enlightenment have been equi-distributed across the world, I think that we are in a period of contraction so that particularism is returning to the ‘natural state’ of man.
I have been looking at history as progressions through economic phases, and the demand for different abilities at each phase and scale and I see a world where calories are of little coast and consequence but VALUE to one another is reduced to zero OTHER than political value. This is what we are ‘intuiting’.
This is a ‘return to normal’ so to speak.
FICTION ( possibility – opportunity – productivity )
LAW ( decidability – limits – parasitism )
Of the following, which is fiction, which is law?
A) Golden Rule : Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
B) Silver Rule: Do not unto others as you would not have done unto you.
Fiction and Law serve as the western equivalent of Ying and Yang.
But our western model innovates, and Ying and Yang stagnates.
PETERSON: FICTIONALISM (SELLING), DOOLITTLE: LAW (TELLING)
HOW DO WE COMMUNICATE IDEAS WITH FICTION BUT NOT FALSELY?
—“We have a universe of potentiality available to us. Is potential which has not yet been called into being ‘fiction’, is it ‘false’?”—
No. We can state it falsely, but we cannot state that which we can envision is yet false. no. To respect natural law we must merely not make false claims. This is the beauty of fiction (literature) vs fictionalism (religion, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience – the discourse of conflation) Fiction makes no truth claims, it merely spreads ideas. If it makes truth claims, (particularly ‘smear campaigns against past idols) then that is not fiction but fictionalization – conflation)
(regarding the republican failure to reform healthcare)
Are you speaking truthfully, with bias, with wishful thinking, or propagandizing (fictionalizing)?
1 – they (mainstream republicans) thought they could replace it in name only.
2 – the right libertarians and conservatives that were elected to repeal it completely put together enough votes to block it.
3 – Now it will fail economically, and they will allow it to fail, and the right and the mainstream republicans will say ‘told you so’ – and they will solidify the movement of the middle class to the republican party permanently.
4 – The left will (as they intended originally) to propose full nationalization upon failure.
5 – The right will propose a tiered program (extending the two tiered system we have today: medicare and private.)
6 – the uninformed (unaligned) voter will provide marginal voting power to one party or another depending upon the timing.
7 – the outcome then is random, dependent upon the economic mood of the country.
My opinion remains, and has been, to keep and expand the subsidy (medicare, medicaid) system for the poor, cover catastrophic health problems fully (for the lower middle and middl) and leave market plans available for the upper middle and upper classes. This three tiered system allows the governments (states) to negotiate price controls for the poor, the middle class to obtain insurance at reasonable prices by eliminating the high cost outliers, and the upper classes to fund research and development as they always have.
This is, I am fairly certain, the optimum system that preserves the benefits of the market on one hand, the control of prices across that market on the other, and the ability to create demand for innovative (risky, expensive) services that respond to market demands.
DO WHAT YOU WERE BORN TO DO (v2)
Killing is what we evolved to do – and we are excel at it. We are evolution’s super-predators. And hunting, sport, and soldiery are poor substitutes for the heady war of warrior kinsmen. There is no higher good, no higher achievement, no greater demonstration of your self and your people, your culture and your civilization, than the defeat, decimation, deprivation, and enslavement of your enemies, and the distribution of their women, their property, and their territory. We don’t need to shrink from the opportunity to war for our kin – but REVEL in it.
We need not water the tree of sovereignty, liberty, freedom with the blood of enemies and tyrants lightly – but drench it, and thoroughly.
Huh. I thought restoring the constitution to natural law was an obligation mandated by the framers, and the very reason for the constitution and the second amendment.
As far as I know, under natural law, the constitition of which is an expression, any act against those institutions that undermines natural law, rule of law, is de facto an act of treason.
if instead, the government is limited only by what the mass of voters and the houses of government rule, then government is purely arbitrary.
CHASING DOWN ‘LIBERTARIAN’ (free rider) SMELLS
—“Curt, is there anything in particular that I said that goes against what you said? For markets to function there needs to be a particular order in the first place, right? Things can change in time, yes, though there are things that do not change or are unlikely to change. Forcing people to live one way or the other, doesn’t help in any way.”—
Hmmm…. well, you know, I have a job right? And in my job I look for opportunities to encourage people to think ‘completely’. So to some degree I’m just ‘riffing’ off your post to get people to think.
But in the context of your post, you are implying steady state, homogeneity, and religious authority necessary to indoctrinate those beliefs – when people merely choose the beliefs that suit their circumstances.
So that I felt the need to do was to remind you and others, that we are not agrarians any longer. That the world of modern urbanity is much more like living as diasporic tribes floating between city-markets, trading our goods (skills, labor), and that we do not have the steady state, the homogeneity, or the ability to indoctrinate under these conditions, and as such we can only struggle to impose limits and exceptions (laws) in a jurisdiction, not ‘regularities’ (beliefs).
So I was reacting to a ‘libertarian smell’, and ‘false assumption’ smell to your argument.
Trade always existed. Cities were created by violence. Markets were created by violence. Trade routes were created by violence. More violence than the thieves could muster to prey upon them.
The truth is, we have to fight. And that’s all there is to it. So what is the social order that both allows us to fight and eliminates the need to fight?
Rule of law.
So yes, forcing people to live under increasing suppression of parasitism is unquestionably in all of history a ‘good’. It may in fact, be the good that produces the highest returns of all. Even more so than the division of labor. Because it is the first good that makes the division of labor possible.
Force, fire, water, air, and words, are good things put to good purpose. Or bad things put to bad purpose. They are not intrinsically good or bad.
“Code smell”, also known as bad smell, in computer programming code, refers to any symptom in the source code of a program that possibly indicates a deeper problem. According to Martin Fowler, “a code smell is a surface indication that usually corresponds to a deeper problem in the system”.
DEAR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
A) Please come for me. Please give me even more credibility, and expand my market dramatically.
B) Please expand the opportunity for promoting discourse on rule of law and the solution to the next iteration of european governments.
C) Please ensure that the income source necessary to fund any revolution (a foreign government) will provide for a revolution.
Once you tried to destroy me procedurally, you made me an enemy, and I made it my mission to ensure that rule of law is restored, so that never again can a man be harmed by the arbitrary judgement of individuals prior to juridical review, under rule of law, under natural law, of universal standing, and universal applicability – without exception.
DO WHAT YOU WERE BORN TO DO
Killing is what we evolved to do. And we are great at it. The best who have ever lived at it. And hunting, sport, and soldiery are poor substitutes for the heady war of warrior kinsmen. There is no more passionate feeling, no higher good, no higher achievement, no greater demonstration of your self and your people, your culture and your civilization, than the defeat, decimation, deprivation, and enslavement of your enemies, and the distribution of their women, their property, and their territory.
Do not water the tree of sovereignty, liberty, freedom with the blood of enemies and tyrants lightly – but drench it, thoroughly.
I think that the scientific rather than platonic explanations are more truthful and less “magical” (and less ridiculous honestly).
So try this: We can act in four dimensions of the physical universe, measure in four dimensions of the physical universe, and model four dimensions of the physical universe with mathematics. However, we can use the same techniques to model purely logical relationships, as we do to model physical relationships. It requires quite a bit of skill to keep track of what you’re doing, but when we are modeling very complex things, like waves, magnetism, forces, economic phenomenon, we can perform very complex calculations – not because these spaces exist, but because we can use the techniques we developed in the more simple physical spaces consisting of a small number of dimensions of change, to solve problems with many many, dimensions of change. It’s not that complicated really. It just sounds complicated because of the old fashioned (archaic) language we use to describe what we’re doing.
Mar 24, 2017 11:43am
(important for propertarian core)
Fictionalism is the name of the judgement within philosophy, as to which statements that appear to be descriptions of the world should not be construed as such, but should instead be understood as cases of “make believe”, of pretending to treat something as literally true (a “useful fiction”).
Fictionalism consists in at least the following three theses:
1) Claims made within the domain of discourse are taken to be truth-apt; that is, descriptive or fictional, and honest or deceitful, and true or false.
2) The domain of discourse is to be interpreted at face value—not reduced to meaning something else:
- conversation(bonding or entertainment),
- discourse (discovery),
- argument(persuasion), and
Differ substantially in the contractual commitments to one another as to the degree of
- description vs fiction,
- honesty vs deceit, and
- truth or falsehood,
Of our statements. (We white and grey lie all time time in conversation, and we do no such thing in testimony.)
3) The purpose of *discourse(discovery)* in any given domain is not truth, but communication. Whether descriptive or fictional, honest or deceptive, true or false.
Four common occurrences of fictionalism are:
1) mathematical fictionalism advocated by Hartry Field, which states that talk of numbers and other mathematical objects is nothing more than a verbal convenience for performing their science. (the logic of constant relations: measurement)
2) modal fictionalism developed by Gideon Rosen, which states that possible worlds, regardless of whether they exist or not, may be a part of a useful discourse, and;
3) moral fictionalism in meta-ethics, advocated by Richard Joyce, suggests that fictions (Falsehoods) are too useful to throw out.
4) religious fiction in all areas of thought – our most ancient form of fictionalism.
5) Aesthetic Fictionalism (In the arts, in experience, in the new age, and in the occult)
We must note that all three of these claims are just excuses for doing what has been done in the past.
Of these groups:
0 – Religious Language in toto (supernaturalism)
1 – Literary Philosophers (positive, or advocates ),
2 – Supernormal Physicists, and
3 – Mathematical Platonists;
All attempt to preserve the use of fictions for one of the following possible reasons:
1) To conduct deceptions by claiming their arbitrary preferences or judgements are truths.
2) Obscure their ignorance of causality and decidability in their disciplines, or
3) Preserve the cost of their investments in obscurantist fictional descriptions, or
4) Avoid the costs of investigating the method of decidability within their domains.
5) Avoid the falsification of their arguments if methods of decidability within their domains are discovered.
If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference, and
If we define truth (negative and descriptive) as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference.
We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups.
We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups.
Natural Law (propertarianism), is a negative, descriptive, juridical science, not a fictional literature.
The Propertarian Institute