This series is provided by the Propertarian Institute.
Goals: Until the 20th century, education was reserved for those who would Rule (manage) other people: the various levels of the Aristocracy(Military), Nobility(Territorial) and Burgher(Commercial), and Intellectual(Teaching) classes. With the dawn of industrialism we altered education to serve the working and labor classes. With the dawn of Postwar socialism we altered education to serve the interests of compliant subjects. What we have done below is restore ‘Victorian Education’, and reform the traditional curriculum in Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and War from one constructed of literature and reason, to one constructed of scientific argument and measurement. By restoring the function of law, education and literature, we can restore our historical education in Transcendence, heroism, sovereignty and agency, rather than Dysgenia, victimhood, slavery, and submission of the 20th century age of deceit.
Note To Self: / Topics to Add:
- Commensurability of property / money
- Commensurability of time like property and money
- Time > store property > store money > borrow money > borrow credit.
- The forms of physical, informational, organizational, institutional, competitive parasitism
- Family property, structures, norms, economies
001 – Introduction to the Courses What Will We Learn?
- Me: Who am I?
- My history, biases, talents and weaknesses
- I have taught these kinds of classes. I have not taught this class, or anything of this scale. You should not expect me to be of teh same clalibre of speaker as professors who have spent careers teaching.
- My talents, biases and weaknesses
- I have a reputation for being difficult to understand below graduate students in the STEM classes. But I will work relatively hard to communicate to you the best that I can. Some of these concepts are not easy.
- About me: Family tradition, My History,
- I am libertarian in my sentiments, but scientific in my judgements.I may confuse you by taking various positions in order to illustrate ideas.
- but if I am successful…
- It will profoundly change you. If we are successful, this will be one of the most meaningful experiences of your life.
- YOU: Why you might want to take these courses:
- You might want to learn why the west differs from the rest – and its strengths and weaknesses – so that you can appreciate your civilization and its weaknesses. Or take lessons from western civilization and apply them to yours. This is not very difficult to understand. It’s undergraduate level thought.
- You might want to understand the cause of our current problems, and how we can fix them.
- You might want to learn a current, and somewhat different history of the world, using conceptual, argumentative, social, and institutional strategies – so that you understand the struggle that we have faced in each era of history, and defend your civilization. Again, this isn’t terribly difficult, although it is definitely undergraduate level thought.
- You might want to learn to how to argumentatively defend western civilization, or to apply the lessons of western civilization to your civilization, nation, people. If you can learn a programming language you should be able to conduct an argument if you have the practice. Whether you understand why such arguments work may or may not be important to you.
- You might want to learn how to unify biology, morality, ethics, philosophy, science, law, and government into a single language, so that you can understand all human action and all human discourse in the most scientifically neutral manner possible. This is quite hard….
- You might want to learn how to construct a post-majoritarian government, in order to restore western civilization – or apply those lessons to yours.
- You might want to learn how to conduct a revolution and reform your system of government into one that is post-majoritarian, and less antagonistic.
- …. So if one or more of those interests you, even if you must struggle through the hard parts, it may be worth it for you. If not, then use what you can.
- YOU: Who this course is for (and who it is not)
- This course is for serious thinkers who are or desire to be, communicators of the western group evolutionary strategy in rational and scientific terms, argumentative activists in the public debate, activist revolutionaries, and would-be revolutionary leaders.
- If you want to feel good about what you already believe I promise you that your sacred cows will not survive this course. I have learned that most of what I believe is half good and half bad. Revolutions in thought are not kind to us. And Propertarianism, like Darwin, is uncomfortable. I will be unmerciful to every culture in these courses, including my own.
- On average it takes people above 140IQ about six months to a year without these courses. I have no idea what will happen with these courses. I suspect it will improve. It takes people with above 130IQ about a year. And it takes people above 120 quite a bit longer. And as others have observed, it is quite difficult to learn the more difficult concepts below 115. HOWEVER, it is also possible that you can take away all the majority content of this if you have only one or two years of college.
- How we will run this course.
- This is not a multiple-choice course – it requires my active participation – with you.
- There are also others who may assist you. We are available much of the time for Q&A.
- Each course includes a series of videos, definitions and wiki articles to read, and some questions to answer in writing.
- What this course requires of you, and me (the professor).
- Time. It is only worth spending my time on serious students. It will require your time.
- Short Readings. I will attempt to limit reading to (free) entries from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and Wikipedia articles wherever possible. However, I do publish an extensive reading list. I leave the reading up to you. My purpose is to teach you techniques through practice. Not to manage your accumulation of general knowledge. (We also have an enormous library in digital form)
- Answers: Since the purpose of propertarianism is teaching prosecution and argument under natural law, you will be asked to write answers to questions. This is more time consuming than multiple choice questions for both of us.
- Comments. Collaborating with others on the class forums.
- So lets get started. Next: What’s Propertarianism, anyway?
COURSE 002 – What is Propertarianism?
- What is Propertarianism?
- In a Word : Reciprocity. Or “Reciprocal-ism, or Reciprocity-ism”
A scientific, meaning descriptive, meaning “what exists”, or “what is”, not what should be – a statement of Natural Law.
What is Natural Law?
A fully decidable (universal) Law of Ethics.
What do you mean by ethics?
The law of cooperation and conflict resolution.
What is this law of cooperation and conflict resolution?
WHAT IS RECIPROCITY?
In the Negative (Silver Rule, or via-negativa): The requirement to avoid the imposition of costs on that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in, without imposing costs upon that which others have likewise born costs to obtain an interest in.
In the Positive(Golden Rule, or via-positiva): the requirement that we limit our actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of the imposition of costs by externality, upon that which others have obtained by the same means.
As determined by the either any change, or the total change in the inventory that all parties both internal and external to the action have born costs to obtain an interest without imposition of costs upon others directly or indirectly by externality.
—“All of ethics can be reduced to the evaluation of the degree of reciprocity and the the accounting thereof.— James Augustus
WHY DOES RECIPROCITY SERVE AS NATURAL LAW?
Because it is apparently impossible to contradict reciprocity in cooperation (ethics), and as such it provides perfect decidability in all contexts of cooperation at all scales in all times, and under all conditions.
**All conflicts are decidable by a full accounting and a test of reciprocity**
WHERE IS THE NAME PROPERTARIANISM FROM?
Why didn’t we use Natural Law or Reciprocity, or Sovereignty, and why did we use Propertarianism?
Natural Law has been ‘tainted’ by various authors, so we had to differentiate ourselves from those previous authors.
We used propertarianism because property, like money, provides the unit of measurement – the test – of changes in state caused by our actions. Property in toto, (that which others have born costs to obtain an interest without imposing costs upon the interests of others) like money, like any standard of measure in any field, provides a perfect test of reciprocity: cooperation.
But calling what I do “Propertarianism”, is a bit like reducing the whole of philosophy into the sub-discipline of ethics. Propertarianism refers ONLY to the ethical component of the philosophy.
So, Propertarianism is sort of a ‘Brand Name” that we stuck with, so that it was not confused with other thought.
But let’s say propertarianism consists of a complete philosophical framework that unites science, biology, morality, ethics, law, politics, and anthropology into a single language of ‘truthful speech’.
Or, more precisely, it is a language of commensurability across all disciplines, all norms, all laws, all governments, all cultures, and all civilizations.
A universal language of decidability and truth telling. At least. The best that is humanly possible.
And what does COMMENSURABILITY mean?
- Just as using a yardstick lets us compare the size of things regardless of our opinions.
- Just as using a scale lets us balance weights of different things regardless of our opinions.
- Just as water in a graduated cup lets us measure volumes
- Just as using money creates prices, which let us compare goods(things), services (actions), and information (knowledge) regardless of our opinions.
- Property in its most complete form lets us compare acts of cooperation, non-cooperation, and predation regardless of our opinions.
- We call measurements, scales, prices, and property: methods of commensurability: allowing us to measure that which we intuitively can’t.
- Property (at least, property in its most full meaning) provides commensurability for all cooperative actions: physical, ethical, moral, political, national, and civilizational.
- But I’ll bet that means something very different from what you might imagine….
- But what is a ‘law’. How does Natural Law fit in?
DEFINITION: LAW (‘inescapable’).
1 – Law: a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), insured by the forces (organizations) of nature, or of man(polity, or government).
LAWS OF MAN
4 – Law (Common): a discovery (finding) of a violation of reciprocity, argued by a plaintiff, defendant, or prosecutor (hypothesis) of the findings of an inquiry by a judge (theory), that survives refutation from other judges (law), insured by a third party insurer of last resort (polity, government).
5 – “Law” (Command) A command issued by the insurer of last resort, insured (enforced) by that insurer of last resort.
6 – “Law” (Legislation): A contract on terms between members of ruling organization, issued by that organization, in its capacity of an insurer of last resort (self insurance).
7 – “Law” (Treaty): An agreement between insurers of last resort, under reciprocal promise of adherence and insurance.
LAWS OF NATURE
1 – CYCLE: Observation > Free association > Hypothesis > Criticism > Theory > Survival > Law > Integration into assumptions about the world.
2 – Law (physical): a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), discovered by a process of testing(prosecuting) an hypothesis against reality,
3 – Law (Natural): a statement of perpetual continuity (reciprocity) insured by the forces of nature (natural law). While natural law is ancient, propertariansm converts it from reasonbleness to rational and scientific.
4 — Law (Information): a statement of perpetual continuity (parsimony), insured by the *results of cooperation among men*. or better said, by survival from competition against other sentient beings – and perhaps our survival *at all*. While epistemology is ancient, Testimonialism completes it – by converting it from rational to ratio-scientific.
We will spend most of our time on Natural Law (Propertarianism) and Informational Law (Testimonialism).
Of these eight, command and legislation are not laws, but enforced as if they were laws. Treaties are uninsurable, because compliance is voluntary, unenforcible, and such agreements are, and always have been regularly violated – unless insured by an empire.
- However, as I have mentioned previously, what and we will cover:
- an explanation of the causes of western superiority in the ancient and modern worlds; an explanation of our current problems; and how to repair them. So that section is HISTORY.
- a reformation and unification of science, philosophy, law, and politics into a single uniform system of thought, language, and grammar. This constitutes the majority of the course. This section is the UNIFICATION of science and philosophy under Natural Law and Testimonialism.
- a suggested evolution upon majoritarian democracy with which to solve the political problems of the era. This section is the reformation of POLITICS.
- TRANSFORMATION:the method of conducting a revolution for the purpose of restoring the western group strategy and evolving majoritarianism. This is the means of revolutionary action.
- Now as some background, How did Propertarianism (Natural Law) Come About?
- I hate conflict. I hate lying. I hate things that don’t make sense. (aspieness)
- Starting in 1992…. A language for Conservatives. Then….
- 2006 – needed a history
- 2009 – solved history and government, but … how do I stop and counter cultural marxism?
- 2012 – solved the problem of the 2oth century thinkers
- 2014 – solved the problem of telling the truth
- But I understood the problem of our age: the industrial revolution, and the social science enlightenment in the 19th century, and the second german scientific revolution of the 19th century, brought forth the industrialization of lying. And it turns out, this isn’t the first time lying has won over truth…. So next lets get started with What Problem Do Propertarianism (reciprocity) and Testimonialism( science ) solve?
COURSE 004 – What Problem Does Propertarianism Solve?
- The Waves of Man (Generations).
- Geography and Man’s Strategy
- Island, Coastal, Forest, Steppe(plains), Desert
- Latitudes and Life
- Competition and Tribalism
- Origins of each major civilization – and its strategies.
- Origins and Strategies
- The Rise and Fall of the Civilizations
- The Set of Patterns of History
- Revolution: Why the west was and is different
- Counter-Revolution: The Attack on the West in Each Era
- Bronze, Iron, Dark, Steel Ages
- The Current Problem (The Current Counter-Revolution)
- The industrialization of lying
- The Disastrous War and the Failure of the 20th Century Intellectuals
FORESTLANDS: Aristocratic Ethics: What will someone not retaliate against even if we agree to it?(rulers/teleological ethics:outcomes) The ethics of warriors who must hold territory. This is a very high cost strategy because while professional warrior aristocracy is militarily superior, smaller numbers mean threats must be constantly suppressed when small, as soon as identified. (Profiting from the domestication of man)
– BORDERLANDS: Cosmopolitan(Jewish) Ethics: What will someone consent to Regardless of future resentment and retaliation? (borderland/subculture/deontological ethics:rules) The ethics of diasporic, migrating traders, or herding peoples who can prey upon the locals who hold territory. This is a very low cost (parasitic) ethics that avoids all contribution to the host commons, but requires preserving the ability to exit (migrate). It is the raider strategy by systemic and verbal rather than physical means.
– STEPPELANDS: Russian(Orthodox) Ethics: What can I get away with now by negotiation and subterfuge, and hold by force later? (steppe raiders) The ethics of steppe people surrounded by competitors, always hostile and unpredictable. This is a difficult and expensive but only possible strategy, when one is surrounded by hostile opportunity seekers. While seemingly expansive, it’s actually a fearful one – aggression as the only possible means of controlling defensive positions across open territory.
— FERTILE CRESCENT LAND: (Profit from the subjugation of man) (cyrus was lost).
– RIVERLANDS: Chinese Ethics: What can I get away with now, but over time make impossible to change later? The ethics of long term ruling bureaucratic class. Sun Tzu strategy, and Confucian hyper familism. This is an exceptionally cost-effective strategy if one possesses a territorial resource (heartland), and can fortify that heartland. Riverlands strategy defends against Steppland and Desertland strategies. (Profiting from the domestication of man)
– DESERTLANDS: Muslim Ethics: (I am still working on this one because I don’t get that it’s causal, but opportunistic.) What can I justify now in order to make this minor advance now? And thereby accumulate wins by wearing down opponents over long periods. The ethics of opportunism. As far as I can tell islam is just an excuse for justifying opportunism. We can consider this the combination of religion and justifying opportunism – a long term very successful strategy becuase it’s very low cost.
– HOSTILELANDS: African Ethics (pre-christian). Africa is akin to the Desertlands because of the sheer number of competitors, the hostility of the disease gradient, the plethora of wildlife, combined with the primitiveness of the available technologies. This is the only possible strategy until one or more core states can evolve, and create sufficient stability in some regions. (this is occurring now).
CIVILIZATIONS NOT STATES
It is a mistake (always), to consider conflicts within states over local power (capital allocation), as of the same consequence as conflicts between civilizations over borders. Because the former is a kinship conflict over priorities, while the latter is a genetic conflict over group evolutionary strategies.
THE DOMESTICATION OF PLANT, ANIMAL, AND MAN
THE CENTRAL ARGUMENT – THE CONFLICT OF CIVILIZATIONS ACROSS MILLENNIA
Part I – The Beginning – Sovereignty, and The Counter Revolution against it. (Bronze Age – Black Sea)
- The Revolution: The choice of Sovereignty, and as a consequence Agency, Natural Law, Thang (Jury), Testimonial (Deflationary) Truth, and Markets in Everything (Meritocracy).
- The Counter-Revolution: The Eastern Development of Fictional Scriptural Religion in the Oral Tradition.
Part II – The Counter Revolution Against Reason and Sovereignty. (Iron Age – Aegean-Mediterranean)
- The Revolution: The choice of Sovereignty, Agency, Natural Law, Jury, Senate, Testimonial (Deflationary) Truth, Reason, and Markets in Everything.
- The Counter Revolution: The Eastern (Jewish, Byzantine, Muslim) Development of Fictional, Scriptural, Authoritarian Religion, conflated with Law, in the Written Tradition.
Part III – The Counter Enlightenment Against Science and Sovereignty. (Steel Age – North Sea-Atlantic)
- The Revolution: The choice of Sovereignty, Agency, Natural Law, Jury, Multi-House Government, Testimonial (Deflationary Truth), Reason, Rationalism, and Empiricism, and Markets in Everything.
- The Counter: Revolution: The Eastern (Jewish, French, Russian) Development of Fictional, Pseudoscientific, Authoritarian Religions.
The Anglos (Legal Empiricists / Locke-Smith-Hume-Jefferson), French (Literary Moralists / Rousseau) and The Germans (Literary Rationalists / Kant) had attempted to restate their group evolutionary strategy in modern terms.
So did the Cosmopolitan Universalist Jews ( Argumentative Fictionalists (pseudo-mythology[authoritarian religion] / pseudo-law/ pseudo-rationalism / pseudoscience / outright-lying)) advocating separatism, poly-ethicalism, fictional utopianism as a universal ‘moral’ strategy.
The Cosmopolitan Universalists (Jews) started producing pseudoscience as the enlightenment change rolled across Eastern Europe, (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Frankfurt) primarily as a reaction to the articulation of aristocratic thought in scientific terms (Darwin, Social Science, Spencer, Nietzsche, and the Romanticists.)
( FYI: Marxism: parasitism upon in-group private production. Libertarianism: parasitism upon in-group commons production. Neo-Conservatism: Parasitism upon other nations’ (out-group) private and commons production. )
While the Germans defended against the enlightenment by rational restatement of hierarchy, duty, and reason in a new literary fashion invented by Kant. The French, Jewish and Russian together attacked the Anglo Enlightenment: the restoration of sovereignty and the attack on Fictionalism which all those nations depended upon. They each responded with a new fictionalism: The French out of feminine idealism and preservation of authority, Jews out of separatism, fear and preservation of authority, and Russians out of opportunity for aggression, restoration of orthodox civilization, usurpation, and preservation of authority – and our Puritans (anglo separatist equivalent of the Jews), and our women (as always) were, frankly, “suckers” for it. Just as they were in the ancient world.
The Great Catastrophe
Just as Byzantium overextended herself and lost to the Turks. Just as Persia and Byzantium overextended themselves and lost to Arabs. Just as Rome overextended herself in Europe and lost to Byzantium; Just as Athens overextended herself in Sicily, and lost to Sparta; Just as the Bronze Age civilizations overextended themselves in the eastern mediterranean and lost to the barbarians. Just as all civilizations overextended themselves, Britain, in an effort to preserve the balance of powers from which she profited, constrained Germany, leaving America as her heir.
Just as Athenian democratic greed prematurely ended the first industrial revolution (the Antikithera device only one step removed from Babbage’s mechanical computer), leaving pragmatic Rome to rule with Athenian and Carthaginian invention – the British, French, and American democratic (commercial) greed ended the second (this time German) scientific revolution, leaving pragmatic America to rule with German and British inventions.
The European civil war to contain Germany was a catastrophe for the West in that it both truncated the completion of the Enlightenment (scientific revolution), whose second phase, and our rescue from eastern mysticism, was in progress in Germany (and from which 19th and 20th century America was the chief beneficiary – not originator.)
It cast doubt upon the Western (aristocratic) order just as the thirty years war had cast doubt upon the prior (religious) order. Thereby reversing our prior gains against supernatural utopianism and the restoration of aristocratic (rule of law) rule, and replacing that supernatural utopianism with economic and political utopianism: pseudoscience.
Postwar Jews immigrating to the United States used their pseudoscience (see “Pilpul”) and attacked and took over the academy and media just as they had used the pulpit in the ancient era, and the printing press in the prior era, to spread their second great lie of pseudoscience in every field of human social order.
Women freed from labor under the industrial revolution used these arguments to reform slavery, seek the vote, and then using the vote, to claim men were their enemies and oppressors rather than their domesticators in a great compromise between the reproductive strategies of women (numbers) – their genes, and those of men (the tribe) – their genes.
Once the slaves had been freed, the women also demanded equal representation, and within one generation after obtaining it used ‘the great lies’ of the cosmopolitans to undermine the western order further by creating a century of pseudoscience.
They used this pseudoscience to pursue the destruction of the church, the destruction of the family, and the conquest of academy, state and media by women’s interests (r-selection), because women dispose of more of the earned income than do men in all these areas.
Women are great consumers and it is profitable to serve them – even when they are spending down five thousand years of accumulated cultural and genetic capital. Women were sold Christianity. Women were sold Cosmopolitanism. Therefore the industrialization of lying found ready consumers. In marketing and advertising, in media and entertainment, and in democratic politics. The insatiable desire of women to consume, preen, signal, nest, care, and redistribute regardless of long term consequences, provided ready ground for the utopian ideology of endless resources provided by endless growth and the end of constraint.
The Failure of Western Thinkers
Western thinkers (for a variety of reasons) in the 20th century were unable to defeat this pseudoscientific utopian fiction, just as Western thinkers had been unable to defeat the previous age’s supernatural utopian fiction in the ancient world.
As Poincare (mathematics) and Friedrich Hayek (economics and law) warned us, the twentieth century would be, and was, regressive in social science, economics, and politics – and it will be remembered as an age of mysticism (actually an age of fictionalism). Even though our progress in Physical Sciences, Chemistry, Engineering, and Information Technology — all products of the truncated German Scientific Revolution – combined with the continued sale of the conquered American continent, combined with the inheritance of the British Empire, combined with the new (now necessary) invention of fiat (stock) money, gave 19th and 20th century America a vast economic boom, which allowed the USA to drag recidivist civilizations (those that adopted the new Jewish Fictionalisms under world communism, socialism, social democracy, and Keynesian non-operational Economics) out of ignorance, poverty, starvation, disease and tyranny.
Why? Because democracy in the ancient and modern world was nothing but a lie by which the middle class could take over the government from the aristocracy – and then over-extend growth until the polity developed economic, political, social, and genetic fragility. Our Western habit. One the Chinese did not practice. (If you must expand to grow productivity you are not in fact productive and innovative, but consumptive.)
But neither the Western Aristocracy, nor its bourgeoise caste could speak the truth: that man, like plant and other animal, had been domesticated for fun and profit by the imposition of meritocracy by shrinking the reproduction of the lower classes, – and that the differences in the rate of development of civilizations is the result of the shrinking of the underclasses, making possible the progress of the civilization in every possible field of endeavor: linguistic, informational, economic, normative, social, cultural, political, and institutional.
The lesson: In the absence of profit through conquest, the most eugenic civilization will always emerge as the most advanced civilization. And this uncomfortable truth is incompatible with unearned (universal) enfranchisement that justifies bourgeoise takeover of government from the aristocracy.
PART IV – What Must Be Done? ( The Second Reformation Against Parasitism and Deceit. )
So armed with this knowledge, how do we reverse the century of propaganda, lies, and pseudoscience of the alliance between the Jews, women and minorities, and return the west its lost confidence, and restore the civilization’s strategy of truth+commons?
We extend the warranty of due diligence against fraud that we require in products in the market, and services in the market, to cover information in the market, and we restore liability to all participants in a chain of production. We eliminate the economic subsidy for ‘entertainment’ we call copyright. We eliminate financial profiting from the sale of shares of the polity (Fiat Money, or for ordinary people, ‘dollars’ in the form of electronic money), preserving all of the appreciation and interest for the polity (treasury). And we grant universal standing (class action) to defense of the market for information. Eventually, we create separate houses of government for separate classes. And we eliminate representatives and change to direct per-resolution, democracy. This will raise the cost of the various fictionalisms (pseudo-myths/religion, pseudo-rationalisms, pseudo-science, and outright deceit) and eliminate its profitability such that we end the industrialization of lying made possible by mass media.
This solution is an incremental advancement upon classical multi-house government in which each class negotiates with other classes for the production of commons, while suppressing the consistent deception (lying) that has been made possible by the industrialization of information distribution (media).
By stating in rational and scientific terms the reason for the West’s rapid success in the ancient and modern periods, despite its many disadvantages. Then using this knowledge to defeat this great utopian pseudoscientific lie, even though we failed in the 20th century, and even though we failed in the ancient world against utopian supernaturalism.
Our ambition is to require truthful speech in economics, politics, and law, the way we require truthful speech in contract, in the market for goods, and in the market for services. There is no reason that one cannot warranty his speech against the great utopian lies if he is to publish it (sell it, distribute it) in the market for information we call ‘the media’.
The West practiced Agency, Sovereignty, Testimony in Deflationary Truth, Natural Law of Cooperation, Markets in Everything, and Aristocratic Egalitarianism (a form of eugenics at scale), and the Militia – and profited from the incremental domestication of the animal man lacking agency, in to the human that possesses it. But this strategy was never written down, only handed down.
So, next lets get started with solving the problem of the industrialization of lying, with “what is philosophy” anyway?
Freshman – the Reformation of Epistemology and Truth – (Testimonialism)
Course 101 – Languages, Methods of argument, and Via-Negativa vs Via-Positiva, Methods of communication suggestion and deceit.
Note: This course is difficult for those without experience in either mathematics(the logic of the measurement of constant relations), philosophy (Rationalism), law (contract), or the scientific method (Empiricism). We will practice this method incrementally throughout the entire set of courses. So it is not so much that this course is first, and you must master it first, but that the rest of the courses depend upon it, and you will master it incrementally as we progress through the courses.
Via Negativa (Survival) vs Via Positiva (Possibility)
- The Problem of Scale in Modernity (and limits)
- The difference between positiva and negativa (and limits)
- The change in demand from positiva to negativa (and new limits)
- Our failure in the 20th century to complete the transition to via-negativa
Production – it’s just not goods, but norms, traditions, institutions, all the way up to civilizations
Parasitism – It’s Not Just Violence.
- The Methods of Extermination, Predation, Parasitism, Risk(investment), Cooperation, Avoidance and Boycott…. etc
- The Methods of violence, harm, theft, fraud, ….. etc.
- The Migration of Predation from Violence, to Theft, To Fraud …. As Civilization … and Property advance.
- The Migration of War from ….. to information
- The Problems of our Age:
- Deception (Pseudoscience and Pseudo-rationalism)
- Financial-ism and Fiat Money
- Democracy and Universal Enfranchisement
- The Cathedral Complex; Academy, State, Media, and Finance: The industrialization of lying, fraud, and theft.
- The End of Western Capital.
- Information is the model not only in physics, but in all thought (Theory, Science).
- The Information Theory Of Cooperative Evolution
- narrative, recording, numbers, recipes, symbols, formula, arguments, contracts, narratives, algorithms, programs, models, simulations, games.
- sand, clay, was, papyrus, parchment, paper, scrolls, books, magazines,
- accounts, accounting, … journals, hierarchal data, relational data, document data, geometries, pure relations, lie groups (meaning)
- tribal memory and reputation,
- habits, norms, philosophies, laws, religions,
- History of thought models
- Information as the current model
- How information is transferred (Properties)
- The basics – venn diagrams.
- The art of suggestion by association
- The art of clarification by reduction
- Conflation(Positiva-Meaning) and Deflation (Negativa-Truth)
- The conflation of the useful and the good with the true.
- The Languages we can speak in ( the series )
- Each of the languages (measurements, technologies)
- Each of the Arguments We Make
- The “Poly-Think-ism” of the west.
- The Four Techniques,
- Dreaming (occult) Free Association
- Fictionalism(Mythology), Narration
- Idealism(Rationalism), Ideal Analogy
- Descriptivism(History and Law) Existential Analogy
- Measurement (Math and Identity) Existential Description
- The Problem of the Distribution of Ability
The Difference between Decidable, Preferable, and Understandable
- A Short Course in Decidability
- A Short Course in Measurement
- A Short Course in Truth (scale)
- A Short Course in Preference (scale)
- A Short Course in the “Good” (preferable) vs “Bad” (Knowable)
The Methods of Deception
- Sources of Knowledge and Ignorance
- Cognitive Biases
- Wishful Thinking
- Suggestion, Loading and Framing
- Overloading, Propagandizing, Mass Media
- Fictionalizing (Pseudo-mysticism, Pseudo-Rationalism, and Pseudoscience)
- Outright Deceit
- Evasion: Shaming, Rallying.
The Defense against Deception
- The (Universal) Law of Epistemology (Theoretical/True vs Axiomatic/Proof)
- The Use of Convergence (competition) to narrow the difference
- The Problem of the Conflation in the Grammar of Observation, Experience, Intention, and Action
- The solution by using actions.
- The Dimensions of Reality (using Math as an analogy)
- Reality – the Dimensions we can act in (Here is our Metaphysics)
- Mathematics as an example – reality through relations through lie groups.
- Names, ideal types, stereotypes, comparisons, series,
- The Methods of Testing Reality (Testimonialism)
- Calculating “Volition”, “Information”, “Externality”, “Warranty”, “Balance Sheets” and “Profit and Loss” rather than just ‘true’ or ‘good’.
- The Meaning of the Scientific Method: instruments, measurements, warranty
- Why Propertarianism Completes the Scientific Method – and why it’s a method.
Course 102 – OUR DEFENSE: The Language of Natural Law-
This is perhaps the most difficult part of the course, and may be the most important, because it requires that you train yourself to think very clearly – and painfully realize that you may not understand or know what you think you do. (Which is its purpose). However, after the freshman level courses your ability to think, communicate, persuade, and argue will be dramatically improved and your grasp of the world rapidly improved as well.
Learn to write and speak about concepts in enumerated series. Three points make a line so to speak, and all concepts can be demarcated and deconflated by referring to series (an ordered list) rather than an ‘idea’ type which allows for suggestion and conflation. (Notice how often I repeat these ‘series’ – over and over again until everyone memorizes them out of habit rather than intent.)
- One Law of Cooperation.
The first step you’ll need to memorize is the very simple One Law of Cooperation: That to create and preserve the incentive to cooperate we must eliminate the incentive not to cooperate, and eliminate the incentive to retaliate, by limiting our actions to those that produce productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers of property in toto, limited to productive externalities (consequences both intended and unintended).
- Property In Toto
The next step is to learn Property in Toto – or ‘Demonstrated Property’. So that you know the categories of things people seek to acquire, inventory and defend. If you have experience with basic accounting, you can think of Property in Toto as the human equivalent of a Balance Sheet.
- Eliminating the Verb “To Be” – Speaking in Existential Actions
The next step in learning how to write clearly is to learn E-Prime. E-prime will force you to write in operational language. Writing in operational language is very hard at first – unless you learned programming first. Because, like Propertarianism, programming is an operational and existential (computable) language.
- Writing in Operational Grammar (sentence structure)
Next, learn how to write sentences in operational grammar. Writing and speaking operationally teaches you what you know and don’t know. We humans use a lot of cheats to lie to ourselves and others about what we understand and don’t understand. It’s very hard to write operationally in full sentences if you don’t know what you’re talking about. Conversely, it helps you learn what it is that you don’t know. And it usually turns out we are vastly overconfident in what we think we know.
- Structuring Arguments as Functions
Just as the US Law is very close to writing software, Propertarianism is close to writing software. In fact, it’s much, much closer to writing software than the US Law, because like programming, all statements are testable, and don’t require you to resort to ‘intuition’.
- Via Negativa – Evolution by Incremental Suppression
The next step is to learn the use of Common, Judge Discovered, Natural Law as a means of incremental suppression of parasitism, and Testimonial Truth as the method of conducting due diligence, and surviving involuntary warranty against the Methods of Parasitism.
So if you have to know what humans do: seek to acquire and preserve property in toto rationally – meaning both morally and immorally, and if you know what you’re talking about using E-Prime, and you write in complete sentences so you can’t suggest or intimate, but have to describe, and you are using precise terms from enumerated lists (spectrums), then you have the basics down. Learning these skills amounts to Propertarianism’s equivalent of the replacement of and reformation of ‘Psychology’.
Course 100 – What is Philosophy (and what pretends to be)
WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY?
(outline of class 100)
There is a difference between precision vs context, (disassociation vs opportunity for association – or DEFLATION VS CONFLATION)
- name – i know of. no context low association
- formula or recipe or algorithm
- description or history – observations
- story or narration – theories of causality
- parable (analogy) – high context high association – lesson in causality
- supernatural – ideal context
- Entertainment Literature
- Mythic literature (wisdom and entertainment),
- ‘Wisdom’ literature,
- Legal literature, and
- Scientific literature.
- judge, warrior, (violence)
- priest, teacher, mother (persuasion)
- financier, entrepreneur, merchant ( organization)
- scientist, craftsman ( transformation)
And that differences in the method that they’re argued.
Western Philosophy (reason and measurement)
… Martial Cult of Sovereignty: (upper class)
… IE Polytheism and Nature Worship. (not sure it’s shamanism)
… Aristotle (law, reason, measurement, aristocratic/martial class)
… Plato (idealism, rationalism) Middle Bureaucratic Class
… Epicurious, Stoics, etc – various middle classes
… Aquinas ( supernaturalism, conflation) Lower Classes
… Martial Cult (upper) (administrative)
… Rational Philosophy, Empiricism, and Law (middle/upper middle)
… … bacon/locke/smith/hume/jefferson/ menger/darwin/maxwell etc (commercial)
… Christianity (working and lower)(public)
… Pagan fables, myths and Rituals (hearth and home)
NOTE ON CLASSES
We tend to think of classes as a pyramid, but this isn’t quite true. As Ill explain later on, The classes that employ force, trade, and gossip, compete with one another, and dominate during different periods of any civilization, and under different conditions in any civilization.
It just so happens that in most civilizations the people who rule in practice are the miiltary and judicial and hold the most power, the people who organize production and trade at all levels the next, and the people who ‘gossip’ the least. conversely, there are more people who use gossip, fewer who organize, and fewer who fight and rule.
However, I often refer to classes as martial force, commercial trade, and priestly or public intellectual gossip. But I will cover class cooperation in depth as we go forward. Even though I realize that it might be confusing which ‘class’ context I am using at any given time.
Eastern ( ‘reasonableness’ and contrast)
… Sun Tzu (aristocratic / martial class)
… Confucius (middle/bureacratic class)
… Lao Tzu (lower/farming class)
(Note the difference between western low context-high precision linguistic syllogism, and eastern hgh context-lowe precision linguistic ‘riddles’ or contrasts.)
Middle Eastern (supernatural wisdom literature, and compliance)
… Early(Advanced Shamanism)
… … Egyptian Mythical (mythic literature) (unknown authors)
… … Hinduism (vedas, classes) (all classes)
… … Martial Cult? ( shamanic? I don’t know)
… Upper Middle / Bureaucratic
… … Iranian / Zoroaster / Zarathustra (authoritarian supernatural scripture)
… …(Upper middle, Middle class snuffed after Cyrus/Darius/Darius)
… Lower Class
… …Semitism/Abrahamism (slave and lower classes)
… … … Abraham (Separatist)
… … … Paul/Saul (feminine)
… … … Muhammed (masculine)
So, we tend to use our western word “philosophy”, and lump together different kinds of wisdom literature, historical and legal literature, and scientific literature into the same camps.
But western and eastern literature differ dramatically from middle eastern literature which claims other-worldly authority; eastern literature that claims hierarchical authority; and wetsern literature that claims *market authority*. But to explain that difference is going to take a bit of work for you and I.
WHATS IN A NAME?
(…. on naming… how can we name something… a referent )
BUT … WESTERN PHILOSOPHY?
Originally? The sum of knowledge within a domain.
But why would you need knowledge?
a) Action (preference, personal)
b) Persuasion ( cooperation, interpersonal )
c) Decidability ( conflict resolution, between any and all )
Philosophy: the search for methods of action, persuasion, and decision in a given domain of inquiry.
(TESTS: EQUALITY OPERATORS)
And why would we need Truth?
The search for methods of decidability regardless of domain of inquiry, regardless of preference(action) or utility (persuasion, cooperation).
(…Elaborate on parsimony and precision…)
(…show how we create universes of possibilities… and narrow them)
(…and we continuously revise until we can act upon them …)
(…and then in this way we see we seek opportunities, advance, and seize them…more so than plan….)
As such there exist many philosophies Utilitarian in context, but only one Truth (decidability) regardless of context.
But what does that mean?
True enough for the consequences:
TRUTH (TRUE), VS TRUE ENOUGH
a) True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship
b) True enough for me to feel good about myself.
c) True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.
d) True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.
e) True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
f) True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.
g) True regardless of all opinions or preferences.
h) Tautologically true: in that the two things are indifferent in properties, operations, and relations
Which gives us:.
- Philosophy and True-enough within a domain: opportunities.
- Law and True, regardless of domain: decidabilities.
Methods of Communication:
RECIPES(FORMULAE), LITERATURE (STORIES), LIES(FICTIONS)
a) actions and therefore transformations
b) causations and therefore opportunities.
c) deceptions and therefore coercions.
Methods of comparison:
IDEALS, GOLDEN MEAN’S, SERIES, TRIANGLES (curves)
a) Categories, stereotypes, ideal types. (categories)
b) Golden mean (comparisons / valuations)
c) Series (exhaustive deconflations).
d) Equilibria. In human terms: Triangles (supply vs demand)
e) Models / Simulations (sets of equilibria)
f) The Universe as it Exists (all equilibrial forces)
MODELS, TRIANGLES, LINES, POINTS
A Note on the use of Triangles, lines, types.
Descartes made good use of the graph, and Gauss has made good use of the bell curve – a normal distribution. And Cournot and Marshall made good use of the supply and demand curve. These tools help us visualize aggregates – lots of stuff – in simple terms. Today we create models and simulations, and we are largely limited only by our ability to collect sufficient information to improve our models and simulations.
I’m going to use a lot of defintions (points), spectra (lines), and triangles (equilibria), and only resort to supply and demand curves when I have no other choice.
1) first, because it’s pretty simple to visualize. and by using a definition(point), spectra(line), triangle (area) I can help cue (suggest or train) you in which tool to use when making your arguments. this helps make a visual association – a symbol for the different processes.
2) But second, and more importantly, as luck would have it, because there are only three methods of influence, persuasion, and coercion available to human beings. Only three reproductive strategies available to human beings, that correspond to those methods of influence, persuasion, and coercion. And so it just turns out that we can illustrate almost all human behavior using those three relationships.
3) because the triangle helps us visualize the equilibrium between these forces.
Does that mean I won’t show you supply demand curves, or even more complex forms of causal relationships? No. I will show you those tools. But only in the context of trying to understand how complexity increases and how we can understand complexity. We won’t do any math. I will just use the basic properties of math (measurement) to explain certain topics to you.
So we are going to use definitions, series, and triangles as means of esuring against our tendency to oversimplify (generarlize and eliminate information), deduce from (expand our error) and draw conclusions (amplify our errors). Which is fine if we are searching for ideas, but terrible if we are trying to test our ideas.
Now, onto those three methods:
(COOPERATION, PERSUASION, COERCION)
The Methods of Cooperation and Coercion:
a) protect vs prey or punish,
b) cooperate vs steal or free ride
a) create opportunity vs deny opportunity
Persuasive (Coercive) Triangle
a) violence: order(safety) / punishment
b) remuneration: exchange / payment
c) gossip: advocating / ridiculing
Decisive (Critical) Triangle
a) deception, false, true Enough, True?
b) voluntary or involuntary
c) gain or loss
The Problems of scale:
Center Spectrum: Man as his own measure
a) below human scale – analogies to perception – expanding
b) within human scale – within our perception – relatively static
c) above human scale – analogies to perception – expanding
Center Spectrum: Man as the Measure – his limits
a) The universe (limits of possibility)
b) Man (limits of man’s actions)
c) Imagination ( limits of imagination)
(TESTIMONY / COMMUNICATION )
The Spectrum of Information:
a) decidable (negative)(necessity
b) informative (neutral)(existential)
c) choice (positive)(preference)
Center Spectrum Series:
a) Science (external limits) (scientific/engeering/craftsmanly)
b) Law (reciprocal limits) (judicial/military/commercial)
c) Aesthetics (preferential limits) (priesthood)
Deflationary Center Spectrum:
a) Historical (Empirical, Descriptive, Existential)
b) Testimonial (Rational, Reciprocal, Cooperative)
c) Artistic (Literary/Artistic/Aesthetic, Preferable)
Methodological Center Spectrum:
a) Empirical (physical, scientific, engineered, descriptive, existential, correspondent )
b) Rational ( Legal, justificationary, non-contradictory)
c) Literary ( Imagined, narrated)
a) Measurement (physical) (possible) (measure reality)
b) Market (cooperative) (reciprocal) (measure other’s preference)
c) Preferential (‘increases in capital’) (measure personal preference. or what we call ‘value’)
False Triangle (Fictionalisms)
a) appeal to (incalculable) good ( moral fallacy ) (conflate calculable preference with incalculable good)
b) appeal to (fictional) order (ideal fallacy) naturalism(naturalistic fallacy)
c) appeal to authority (divine fallacy)
Fictionalisms are achieved by i) conflation, and ii) shifting (claiming coercive information that does not exist).
a) CONFLATION AND MONOPOLY (STAGNATION) (old) (theocracy, bureaucracy, undecidability)
b) DEFLATION AND COMPETITION (INNOVATION) (growing) (market decidability)
c) COMMAND (TRANSFORMATION) (to deflationary)(behind) (fascism/generalship/authoritarian decidability)
a) Nietzche: aesthetic restoration (Values)
b) Doolittle(and others): legal restoration
c) Many Scientists : scientific restoration
NOW WE NEED WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
WHAT HAVE WE ACCOMPLISHED?
Well, what I hoped to accomplish is to define philosophy, define decidability, show the operations by which we communicate, and test our communications. And hopefully introduce you to definitions, sequences, and equilibria as means of testing communications (arguments) for their means of precision.
The Reformation of Psychology(Individual), Ethics(Others), Sociology(Groups) – And Applications To Moral and Ethical Questions ( Propertarian Ethics )
Course 201 – Introduction To the Outline
The Evolution of Choice
life, sentience, awareness, consciousness, reason, calculation, science (truth).
The Evolution of Cooperation
Interpersonal cooperation, interpersonal competition, interpersonal conflict.
Ingroup Cooperation, Ingroup Competition, Ingroup War.
Outgroup Coopeartion, Outgroup Competition, Outgroup War.
The Evolution of the Family
Family, Clan, Tribe, State, Nation, Corporation, Empire
The Evolution of Rules (Limits)
Habits, manners/ethics/morals, Norms, Laws, Traditions, Myths and Religions
The Evolution of Property
The Evolution of Money, Prices, Accounting, Economics, Economics in Toto
The Evolution of Argument (negotiation).
Course 210 – Psychology : Acquisition
- The Mind (How It Works, Systems, Limits, Differences)
- Personality and Intelligence
- Genetics, In Utero, Development of the Mind
- Male Vs Female / Solipsism(psychosis) Vs Autism
- Rate and Depth of Sexual Maturity
- Sexual Dimorphism (Gender Distribution)
- Clannishness Vs Openness
- Reproductive and Class Division of Perception
- Male and Female
- Female, Young Male, Adult Male
- Moral Blindness
(draft) (worth repeating)
A RESTATEMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY: PROPERTARIANISM’S THREE-FACTOR CAUSAL MODEL
I. ASSETS (FACTS)
P1) ASSETS: self/body, energy, relations, investment/opportunity
P2) ABILITY: intellect/intellectual effort, emotional reserves/ability, physical ability / effort,
P3) DESIRABILITY: other-acceptance(non-rejection), other-information, other-insurance),
Note that these three are (a) evidentiary in the individual’s experience of his or her life, (b) habitual in the family unit and the information and training of the family unit – and informationally inherited. (c) evident in the assets of the family unit, (c) genetically inheritable.
But what assets do we humans seek to preserve, consume, acquire, and maintain? A rich portfolio that varies from our life itself, time, food, shelter, kin, mates, allies (people to cooperate with), private property (stuff), private commons, public commons, territory, information, opportunity, normative institutions, cultural institutions, formal institutions. The reasons being that as we increase each of these our discount on intellectual, emotional, and physical effort increases.
Through cooperation in a division of temporal perception, knowledge, labor, negotiation, and advocacy, we use the one commodity that is most precious: time, to make everything we desire cheaper – so profoundly so that we actually cannot fathom its scale. By the simple combination of sovereignty and reciprocity; norm, tradition, literature and myth; property, contract and law; money, prices and credit; family(marriage), organization(corporation), voluntary(civic), local, regional, and national government; we convert the little time of our human lives into the production of complex goods any one, even the most simple, the production of which would consume lifetime of an individual.
II. REACTIONS (GENETIC/BIOLOGICAL INSTRUCTIONS/INFORMATION)
E1) Pleasure(reward) vs Pain(cost) (pre cognitive)
E2) Excitement(projected gain/loss) vs Rest (conserve) (cognitive but pre-social)
E3) Aggression(dominance) vs Fear(submission) (cognitive and social)
All emotions describe anticipated changes in state of (P1)Assets. That is all that they describe. Nothing more. They may evolve through complex combinations of assets and emotional reactions, so that we experience a ‘chord’ or ‘symphony’ of emotions. And we might (artists do) attempt to compose such ‘symphonies’ for us to experience. But just as all music is constructed from a limited number of properties, and complexity emerges from its subtle combinations, emotions are constructed from only a small number of properties, and complexity in our experience emerges from dense combinations of those subtle combinations.
Note that by combining these three emotions with the various forms of ASSETS, and the various values of those assets, we can produce the entire spectrum of human emotions in a rich orchestra no matter which emotional framework we wish to describe.
III. THE REPRODUCTIVE DISTRIBUTION OF ADVOCACY
I1) The feminine near term need for inventory and consumption given the fragility and duration of the maturity of offspring. (socialistic/individualistic/offspring)
I2) The immature male need for opportunity to accumulate assets in order to attract and maintain females. (libertarian/individualistic/assets)
I3) The mature male need to preserve costly personal, familial, group, tribal investments (conservative/familial/tribal/preservation)
Note that these differences in reproductive strategy are expressed in our advocacy for the distribution of the proceeds of population density, cooperation within that population density: female egalitarian, male youth individualist, and adult male meritocratic. Each bias reflects the reproductive strategy of the the genders. Each member does in fact contribute to the creation of returns withing a polity (group) as long as he or she doe not predatorially, parasitically, free-ride upon the group’s efforts. Individuals can specialize or develop portfolios of contributions to a polity. And most of us develop portfolios that produce the maximum returns for us given our abilities.
Those portfolios consist in:
The provision of caretaking. The adherence to and policing of norms, traditions, rituals, the recitation of myths. Participation in cooperation of defense, goods, services, and information. Virtuous contribution to the commons through donation and redistribution. Meritorious contribution to the commons through the production of excellence. Status contribution to the commons through the contribution to or production of institutions and monuments. Heroic contribution to the commons by self sacrifice or risk. ( But let us remember that people can also engage in false advertising in order to obtain opportunity and free riding without performance or investment. )
Note that nothing else is necessary to describe all ethical, moral, and social behavior.
REASONS WHY THESE CAUSES ARE OBSCURED FROM US
1) The terms used above are analogies that we can reduce to frames of current experience. How our brains record, anticipate gains and losses of the various forms of assets they find useful is still something we must discover. However, in that discipline we call psychology: the operations and variables that constitute the human experience, I have significant doubts whether further refinement of this set of ‘names’ will vary further any more so than have number and note, weight, volume, and velocity. And that all further refinement to psychology will consist largely of subtle expressions constructed upon these terms.
Whenever we change the paradigm of any model that serves our ability to describe phenomenon, it is because we have developed a technology by which the scale of our perceptions and scale of our actions, require redefinition of the model to accommodate the new increases in scope.
2) Human conscious experience is conflationary: the combination of perception, memory, and recursive interactions of perception and memory, producing a continuous ‘overload'(conflation) that our short term memories are insufficient to preserve as a state, and where that preserved state would be necessary for introspection. Were we able to capture (freeze) frames of that complex experience in our short term memories we might be able to trace the causal routes through the layers of our brain with a great deal of practice. And in some cases we are able to do that. But because our experience is ‘assembled’ and ‘reassembled’ each time, and because we actually modify it with each reflection upon it, the sheer quantity of fragmentary information would be ‘unfollowable’ except as a sequence of concepts – a sequence that through introspection we can sometimes deduce.
IIII. THE INTERGENERATIONAL DIVISION OF ASSETS (KNOWLEDGE vs ENERGY)
Given youthful poverty, ignorance, energy, and lack of accumulated cellular damage, and mature wealth, and knowledge accumulated at the cost of accumulated cellular damage, the generations engaged (until the 20th century usurpation by government and redistribution from the mature and aged to underclass reproduction) in a voluntary exchange between the generations.
The most obvious is the transmission of care and property between generations of families, but the least obvious is the borrowing and lending of money and interest OUTSIDE of families, and even outside of those who are known to us by use of the legal, finance, and banking system – in one of the most egalitarian but meritocratic means of intergenerational cooperation while preserving accumulated information by which the old could control the risks of the young. Again which was destroyed by government interference in the 20th century through the use of fiat credit and the subsequent empowerment of the financial sector.
Note that nothing else is required to explain various cultural behaviors other than reproductive strategies, moral intuitions for ‘proper/fair’ property and proceed distribution in relation to reproductive strategies. Family strategies and the correspondence of family strategies with the increasing accumulation of various properties, with individual property ownership instead of family currently eliminating the last vestiges of the family as an asset-transfer unit (made possible by the destruction of the family by the government transfer of assets from productive to unproductive individuals).
V. THE INTRA-CIVILIZATIONAL DIVISION OF TEMPORAL SPECIALIZATION
It’s rather obvious that the bronze and iron ages radiated out from the fertile crescent whose seasonal flooding provided reliable irrigation that could be controlled by a warrior elite, the proceeds of production extracted, consumption increased by the elites, and investments in commons produced by their followers.
It is somewhat obvious that the trade routes from northern Italy overland to the north sea, wherein the Venetians provided a navy for the wealthier but more despotic Byzantines and their Conquerors the Muslims, created the foundation for first the failed Carolingian civilization, and the ‘truncated’ Hanseatic civilization. And that today’s european heartland still reflects Carolingian Lotharingia.
It is less obvious that in european civilization, from Spain to the Urals, the same pattern of radiation outward is visible from the north sea down to the Hajnal line, within which northern europeans practiced bipartite manorialism the nuclear, and absolute nuclear family, as well as the common law of sovereign men, as well as rule of law – governance without rule by market means. And then through the catholic countries where they did not, to the eastern european countries where the middle class evolution was late – and truncated by the Russians, to the Russian that civilization that was too young, to experience either the scientific enlightenment, or the reformation to which they were more suitable, and busy conquering the remains of the Mongol’s Golden Horde empire from Belarus to the pacific and into what is today Alaska.
Below the protestant, catholic, and orthodox lines of civilization we see a polar opposite strategy: not one of incremental domestication for profit in pursuit of limiting or eliminating rule: Sovereignty, but one of preservation of ignorance, preservation of underclasses, preservation of family and tribal orders, preservation of tribal conflict, and thereby an ever INCREASING demand for authoritative rule – a rule that is profitable for a large number of religious ‘judges’ and advisors, and an authoritarian militaristic state apparatus. Were it not for the presence of cheaply extracted oil, this part of the world would be somewhere developmentally below south america given it’s indigenous underclass, between rural India and its indigenous underclass, and high conflict subsaharan Africa, and its indigenous underclasses.
And far to the east we have Indian civilization who, thanks to Hinduism has succeed at least in creating a relatively gentle people, and who has (unwantingly) imported anglo logic, and russian economics and politics and law. Chinese civilization that has imported russian philosophy, economics, and politics, and is now importing anglo empiricism and technology. But where indians are optimistically untruthful people, chinese are pessimistically untruthful people. And Russians are opportunistically untruthful people.
What the chinese and russians have had is a military capable of altering the course of the civilization when necessary. This is what the hindus do not have. Perhaps for the simple reason that the continent of india unlike the narrow strips of green that constitution the population centers of russia and china, is simply impossible to rule centrally without an external threat that gives rise for the need to form a military as did china to resist modernity, and russia to provide an alternative to modernity.
With this history in mind we can see something quite interestinsg
that the stock market and high risk and highly ‘evangelical’ movements exist in america, and that americans practice scientific law – and that maericans deny the existence of their classes. That the bond market and banking exist in England. That the british have traded Anglo empiricism for a conflation with French Rousseuian moralism and practice moral law. And that the british complain about their classes. That engineering and perhaps the most psychologically precise language and high capital investment and an explicity hierarchy exist in germany along with requisite ‘duty’ more so than empathic ‘morality’. That eastern europe has been truncated but now forms a relatively moral labor force. That Russia provides the military and resources on a scale and practicality that the idealistic utopianism of the american military can never hope to achieve despite it’s technological and operational excellence – which is exactly its primary weakness. No Russian would produce a US military. It’s fragile. It’s just big. What makes american military dangerous is TRUST. Americans fight and maintain formation. and take initiative to win.
So what we see is high risk Americans, tepid risk Britons, low risk Germans, risk averse eastern europeans, and highly risk intolerant if not outright paranoid Russians.
That this civilization from Australia to america to Europe, to Russian Asia constitutes a series of specializations in the inter-temporal demands of the civilization is not so obvious. That’s unfortunate, because no other civilization can manage it.
NOTE: Note that nothing else is needed to explain the differences between these societies other than the atomicity of property due to the advancement of the commercial sector that we call the middle class.
RECIPROCITY AS INFORMATION, AND ASSETS AS DECIDABILITY: NATURAL LAW
Just as voluntary exchange free of fraud is the only test of whether a good, service, or information has been a use of resources, a personal consumption, or waste of resources, voluntary cooperation free of deceit is the only means of testing reciprocity(sovereignty) whether the resource of cooperation (time, energy, opportunity, resources) has been productive, parasitically consumed, or wasted.
When we engage in cooperative exchanges across our various abilities, needs, and biases we discover which goods, services, and information is desired by the market, and we therefore adjust our relations, efforts, and or thoughts, to find a balance between what we desire to do, what is available to do, and what others want us to do.
In this way, through sovereignty, reciprocity, and markets in all walks of life we ‘calculate’ methods of achieving one another’s goals without having the intention of achieving one another’s goals.
We the rely on rebellion, rallying, shaming, ridicule, disagreement, debate, discourse, agreement, congratulations, advocacy, and cooperative action depending upon we agree with or disagree with one ‘ambition’ in the portfolio of ambitions that we are aware of and capable of understanding at any time.
And while only those with errors (mental illnesses – wether physical, emotional, or intellectual) engage in those topics of investigation that are increasingly difficult to reduce to direct experience:, economics, engineering, biology, chemistry, physics, logic, mathematics – because they possess neither a portfolio of investments nor knowledge to trade them;
unfortunately everyone can reduce questions of reciprocity, ethics, morality, politics, culture, and civilization to direct experience because from micro investors to major investors each of us has defacto constructed a portfolio of cooperation. Unfortunately, just as the economics of the family, the business, the nation, and the world, operate by very different and completely counterintuitive, and often opposite rules, such that excellence in one niche is not commutable to another, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and humans of all levels of sophistication overestimate their knowledge.
One of the reasons for teaching and speaking, and legislating in Propertarianism’s Natural Law, is that the logic of law and cooperation is no longer subjectively undecidable, but objectively decidable regardless of norm, tradition, culture, or legislation. And as such we educate in morality by a means as certain as mathematics: because just as mathematics must be constructible by means of operations retaining consistent relations, consent, cooperation, contract and law must be constructible by means of operations consisting of constant relations we call ‘reciprocity’ : the productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of our assets and limited to productive externalities to the assets of others.
And more importantly, since the invention of the pulpit in prior eras, and the print in subsequent eras, and mass media in our just-ending era, has led to the incremental industrialization of error, suggestion, and deceit, and that we developed reason as a counter to eastern supernaturalism in the ancient world, were defeated by eastern supernaturalism, and then rescued ourselves by empiricism in early modern world, nearly completed the second scientific revolution in Germany before it was truncated by the world wars, and that we have nearly been defeated by eastern pseudoscientific mysticism of the cosmopolitans in the twentieth century world, and given that the thinkers of the last century (darwin, nietzsche, spencer, poincare, brouwer, bridgman, mises, popper, hayek) failed to produce the *advancement* in empiricism that would allow us to refute the pseudoscitsts that attempted the third wave of supernaturalism – this time by even more innovative means (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, the Frankfurt School).
As far as I know all human emotion and behavior can be explained by these three ASSETS, these three EMOTIONS, and the MEMORY of our life experience to date; along with the division of reproductive labor, the division of intertemporal labor, the division of productive labor, the division of class labor in producing commons, and the division of civilizational labor in producing commons at the largest scales.
As far as I know differences in personalities allow us to specialize in niches and as long as we do not err in our assessments of our assets, all personality types both (a) gravitate to empirically available portfolios and the uses of those portfolios, and (b) react rationally and emotionally rationally to the current and future value of those portfolios. (c) and assistance in improving those portfolios is the best that we can do for one another – and what makes us love one another – investing in one another.
As far as I know some individuals are defective primarily in their limited reserves of frustration in relation to their other abilities. As far as I know the classes consist of individuals with increasing inheritances of (P1)Assets, (P2)Abilities, and (P3)Desirability. And as far as I know the classes sort according to familial, associative, productive, reproductive, and political utility to one another.
As far as I know the west and the far east have been most successful because a combination of climate (cold), production techniques (small family farms), aristocracy imposed manorialism (access to land and therefore reproduction), and an aristocracy that aggressively exterminated those troublemakers. Meanwhile the process of reproductive selection among those that remained favored lower impulsivity, lower and slower maturity, and more feminine traits in women, which resulted in domestication of then population through pedomorphic evolution much more so than all other forms of evolutionary influence combined.
UNCONSCIOUS VS CONSCIOUS TRAINING OF THE MIND.
We can vary our assets. We can get fit, we can primp and preen, we can learn manners and small talk, We can learn skills. We can develop relationships, produce and save. But we can only do so to the limits of our genetically inherited abilities.
Therefore, the primary means of self improvement given the limits of our genetic assets, is through the REMOVAL OF ERROR: the problems of the self: ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking. The problem is, that we often cannot tolerate a true accounting of our assets, or opportunity for assets, because the realization that we have empty pockets so to speak, and are totally dependent upon the favor of others, when we are undesirable by others, because we are either a cost or lacking value to others, would remove from us the will to live. It is for this reason alone that Buddhism Succeeded among the poor, and Stoicism Succeeded among the working and middle classes, and science, economics, law, and philosophy, among the upper middle and upper classes: these methods of thought correspond to the means of eliminating fear of falling behind our peers in the constant race with the red queen in all walks of social life.
PERSONALITIES ARE THE RESULT OF A NEED TO COOPERATE AND THE CONSTANT COMPETITION FOR COOPERATIVE ASSETS
If we do not need to cooperate, how complex a set of personalities do we need? we need to be more mobile to find food, we need to be smarter to hunt food, we need to be smarter to outwit competitors, we need to be much smarter to cooperate to outwit competitors – whether within the group or without it.
We must seek to find niches to exploit within group and without group, and within nature by individual means, and within nature by cooperative means. We seek to create allies in cooperation, to join allies in cooperation, and to outwit allies by defection, and to outwit enemies by circumvention, cooperation, or defeat.
But most of our cooperation occurs within group. Most of our evolution occurred because of in-group problems of negotiation.
The band/family was knowable. The family/tribe somewhat knowable. The village/family knowable. The city not knowable, but because of family religion and law and barter, somewhat predictable. The big city is not knowable whatsoever without jobs, law and pricing. The metropolis is not knowable whatsoever without jobs, law, pricing, credit, and mass media – like religion, attempting to force us into peerage. And modernity is was beginning to be terrifyingly unknowable until jobs, law, pricing, credit, and the new distributed media that allowed us to find peers around the world easily.
I suspect the future will be an expansion of interpersonal reputation, legal reputation, credit reputation, and ‘social media’ reputation of some sort – so that we may identify informational peers amidst the multitude of different grains of human sand. And I would expect to see an increase in specialization of identities – if only for signaling purposes – and personalities – as means of adapting – just as we have seen an increase in the specialization of knowledge and labor.
DIVERSITY OF PERSONALITIES EVEN WITHIN A HETEROGENOUS POLITY ARE AN ASSET
Personalities are a means of dividing the problem of the intertemporal and reproductive division of perception knowledge, negotiation advocacy, and labor into that thing we call reciprocity and the benefits of cooperating in increasing scales while taking advantage of both increasingly small niches for those with lesser abilities, maintaining niches, and generating new niches, that destroy the old.
BUT THERE ARE NO LIMITLESS GOODS
WE BOUND THE LIMITLESS GOODS WITH VOLUNTARY COOPERATION AND UNBIND THEM WITH VIOLATIONS OF VOLUNTARY COOPERATION.
Ergo, the government has destroyed the checks and balances of a heterogeneous polity.
THE HYPOTHALAMIC PROBLEM/BENEFIT AND MODERNITY
COMPARE TO THE FIVE FACTOR MODEL – THE “AUTHORITARIAN” or “MONOPOLY” or “CONFORMITY” or “ILLNESS” INDUSTRIAL ERA’s SYMPATHETIC MODEL OF MAN
In every era of history we have used the most sophisticated technology we know of as an analogical model to both describe the introspectively unavailable functions of the human mind, and to justify whatever authoritarian model we wish to impose upon one another. Freud and Jungs attempt to escape Darwin and Nietzsche by fabricating pseudosciences with which they could criticize what they held in disdain made use of the uniformity-industrialism and sexually-repressive-victorian (due to syphilis) models of the day.
Wile in the last century thanks to Maxwell, we spoke physical phenomenon as changes in energy. In the current era, thanks to physicists we speak of physical phenomenon as changes in the state of information. In the past eras we spoke of passions and virtues, then of emotions and wants. and thanks to Hayek we now speak of social science, and now thanks to Turing, we speak of psychology as changes in state of information. In doing so we cast off the imprecision and bias of prior eras, and the attempts at deception of prior political and cultural movements.
The current model of personality that psychologists operate by retains both the authoritarianism of the industrialist and socialist era, with only tepid attempts at reform in response to the findings of the cognitive sciences, and the conversion of pseudoscientific psychology to empirical psychology. The current Five Factor (or six or seven) model in its various forms does in fact correspond somewhat to services provided by brain structures.
FF1) CURIOSITY (INTELLECT-NOVEL) / REPEATABILITY (MEMORY-KNOWN) (psychology): The ability available to find rewards in success through experimentation or the inability to tolerate frustration in failure and the discovery of success in repetition
FF2) EXTRAVERSION / INTROVERSION (psychology): Method by which one processes information: dependence upon self reflection, or dependence upon empathy and communication from others. The limits to frustration we obtain with seeking information from others depending upon our desirability for informational cooperation with others.
FF3) AGREEABLENESS / DISAGREEABLENESS (Psychology): “the willingness to bear small costs of investment in order to identify present and longer term opportunities for gains or consumption and prevent current and future costs or losses.” (byproduct of conscientious ness/extroversion?)
FF4) CONSCIENTIOUSNESS / BLAME-AVOIDANCE:
FF5) CONFIDENCE-EMOTIONAL STABILITY / FEAR – NEUROTICISM
Course 220 – Ethics and morality : Cooperation (InGroup)
- Cooperation and its returns
- Signaling in all its forms
- Negotiation not Truth
- Ethics and Morality
- Personal and preferential, (purely personal)
- Normative and justifiable, (normative adherence)
- Objective and Decidable (conflict resolution)
- Family, Morality, and Property
- Trust and Groupishness
- Measurement – How do we Measure Human Capital?
Course 220 – Sociology (InGroup)
- Norms as portfolios of … (answer) (discounts)
- Signaling as The Human Accounting System
- All About Signaling
- All about virtue signaling and signal spirals.
- Class Coercion and Specialization
- Class Orders, Horizontal and Vertical
Course 330 – Competition (OutGroup Competition)
- Group Adaptation and Expression
- Polity Formation and Incentives (how to form polities under different conditions)
- Measurement – how do we measure social capital?
Junior – Reformation of Law, Politics, and Institutions – (Market Government)
COURSE 310 – The Economics of Time (via negativa)
- Time Saved – We are not wealthier than cave men
- Opportunity Economy (proximity, density, cities)
- Increases everything – good and bad
- Eliminating violence, theft fraud to reduce transaction and oppy costs
- Eliminating errors, bias, deceit to identify opportunities
- Eliminating conspiracy in all its forms (ingroup predatory orders)
- Eliminating war in all its forms (outgroup predatory orders)
- Incremental Suppression – the spectrum of institutions (norm, law, govt, military)
- The Agility of the Common Law
- The Transaction Cost of Government (evolution of)
- The competition for polities and the differnces in opportunity and transaction costs.
- Voluntary Vs Involuntary Orders
- Capitalism, Mixed, Socialism
- The Individual (Productive) Division of Knowledge and Labor
- The Reproductive Division of Knowledge and Labor
- Intertemporal Division of Perception, Cognition…
- The Intergenerational Division of Knowledge and Labor
- The Class Division of Knowledge and Labor
- The Circumpolar Division of Knowledge and Labor
COURSE 330 – Politics (Organizational Models)
Perfect Government – Markets in Everything
- Sovereignty as Strategy
- Markets In Everything: Rule of Law
- Market for Association and disassociation
- Market for Reproduction (Marriage)
- Market for Production and Consumption
- Market for Production of Commons
- The many problems of Democracy
- Market for the resolution of conflict.
- Market for Rule
- Fascism (one)
- Oligarchy (some)
- Republicanism (many)
- Democracy (All)
COURSE 340 – ( … ) INSTITUTIONS
COURSE 350 – Group Evolutionary Strategy
- Group Evolutionary Strategy and Competition
- Conditions, Distributions, Strategy, Culture, and Genes
- Humanity, Race, Higher Tribalism, War, Competition and Cooperation
- The Final Question of Decidability: Dysgenic, Pragmatic, Eugenic?
- Measurement – how do we measure (and judge) Strategies?
Group Competitive Models
- Informational Superiority
- Talent Superiority
- Technological Superiority
- Cultural Superiority
- Institutional Superiority
- Accumulated Capital Exploitation
- Reproductive Superiority
- Demographic Exploitation (population)
- Trade Route Exploitation
- Territorial Positon Exploitation
- Territorial Resource Exploitation
- Pragmatic / Cooperative
We will each choose three groups from any times in history and explain their strategies.
The Reformation of War and Competition – (Competition and Conflict)
Course 401 – The Forms of Warfare and Time Frames
- Religion (Conversion)
- Trade and Financial (Economic)
- War and Conquest
Course 402 – The Conduct of Revolution and Warfare
- Generations of Warfare – And our Current Generation
- Command, Communications, and Control
- Via-Negativa, OODA Loops, Trust, and Technology
- Contemporary Strategy and Tactics
- Setting Demands (conditions of winning)
- Recruitment and Training
Course 403 – War Games – (Seminar)
- Given set of conditions (case studies)
- Create Strategy and Demands
- Plan, Organize, and Conduct Revolutionary War (teams)
Putting Propertarianism Into Practice
Graduate Courses – Law
Graduate – Seminar in Writing Arguments For and Against The suite of moral questions.
Course 500 – ( … )
- Theories of good
- Libel and slander
- Interest / usury
- Restitution (crime/negligence)
- Punishment (criminal)
- Punishing (beating)
- The Informational Commons
- The Market Commons
- Weights measures
- Product safety
- Intellectual property
- Spatial commons
- The land air and seas
- Space (extra terrestrial)
- Artificial intelligences
- Association and exclusion
- Self defense
- Dysgenia and eugenia
- Shelter: winter and summer
- Rule vs govern
- Symbolic contract/legislation prohibited
Graduate – Seminar in Writing Arguments Against Political Ideologies
Course 500 –
We construct arguments (for and) against
- Social Democracy,
- Classical Liberalism,
- Anarcho Capitalism,
- and others.
Graduate – The Perfect Constitution of Natural Law
Course 50x – The Constitution of Natural Law
Graduate – Seminar in Writing Constitutions Using Natural Law
Course 50x – ( … )
Graduate Courses – Rule
Graduate – Revolution, Conquest, and Rule (Aristocratic Egalitarianism)
Course 50x – ( … )
Graduate – Seminar in Judging (Judge of Natural Law)
Course 50x – ( … )
Graduate – Governance ( Local and Regional Leadership )
Course 50x – ( … )
Graduate – Administration Insurer of Last Resort
Course 50x – ( … )
Graduate – Institutions (of cooperation), Courts, Banking, Trade, Service, Militia
Course 50x – ( … )
Graduate – Infrastructure (Built Capital)
Course 50x – ( … )
Graduate – Myth and Tradition, Religion, Education,
Course 50x – ( … )
Graduate – Aesthetics, Arts, and Literature
Course 50x – ( … )
Post Graduate Courses – EDUCATION – History, Literature, and Parable
Course 60x – Seminars – Readings in Science, History, and Literature
Our goal in these seminars is to identify examples in the historical literature that can be used to illustrate what we have learned, and to learn to criticize what we have abandoned. Literature is much easier than reason, and much much easier than logic and measurement. And therefore the ‘common language’ of the unskilled in the arts of measurement.
Courses in Revolution and War
001 – Revolutionary Strategy, Organization, and Logistics
(base document: https://propertarianism.com/2017/04/05/the-conduct-of-revolution-a-market-for-action/ )
Men with the Agency to demand Sovereignty for themselves, and liberty, freedom and subsidy for their kin, do not need a leader to direct them – that would be illogical. They need an achievable goal, organization, communication, strategy, tactics, and communication. And they need to rally a few handfuls of men of like minds to assist them.
It is only logical that a group of men with agency, in pursue of sovereignty, natural law, markets in everything, and the transcendence that results, would conduct a revolution by market rather than means of central leadership.
When throwing a revolution against a fragile but powerful state, one needs only to exploit the fragility of the fragile state, and to let fragility do the work for the revolutionaries.
No civilization has been more fragile, and no time ever more full of opportunity than the anglo-american empire in the current era.
How do we create a Market for Revolutionary Action? It’s easy. How do markets work? Supply something of value to the leaders and actors who desire it.
(More to come)