Responses

Yes, Lying Is A Strategy For The Left – But Not The Right.

—The proof is in the Left’s success.—

Lying is a successful strategy. Marxist pseudoscience was a successful strategy. Kantian pseudorationalism was a successful strategy. Acquinian Christian synthesis was a successful strategy. Christianity was a successful strategy. Jewish synthesis of Egyptian and Babylonian monotheism was a successful strategy.

If you succeed by lying, have you in fact succeeded?

—Gramsci was no fraud and no lie and no pseudo-science.—

Are you sure that his Marxist framing of his criticism of capitalism is not in itself pseudoscientific? (it is). The assumption is that man was innately good and that state and capitalist were predators, rather than man was barbaric, and that religion(norm/ostracism), state(law/force), and capital(remuneration/exchange) were the three tools available to man to engage in the gradual eugenic domestication of man by the systematic culling of the underclasses. And the most successful societies with the highest standard of living are those that most successfully culled the underclasses and therefore domesticated man sufficiently to create a division of labor. This is the scientific explanation.

Put it his way: if your standard of measure is wrong, or you basic axioms are wrong, all deductions from your standard of measure or your axiom are also wrong – and if they’re right then it’s just an accident.

So, yes, marxism is pseudoscience, socially, psychologically, and economically, and Gramsci was yet another pseudoscientist. The fact that he bases his arguments on Marxist justificationism rather than Christian theologism, is merely a choice of words – words that were designed to achieve the same ends.

—And they are a very eugenic group.—

If that’s true then (a) why are they reproductively undesirable, (b) why do they have such high rates of inverted sexual dimorphism, homosexuality, schizophrenia, and disease? (c) (and the question that matters) why are they unable to hold territory of their own without a host to prey upon? I agree that jews are elites in populist circles but they are only temporarily so, just as anglos were elites during their enlightenment, french theirs, germans theirs, and jews theirs. Jewish enlightenment being the last can take advantage of the lessons learned from the first few. But in the end, the Jewish century just ended and the Jewish pseudosciences: boaz, marx, frued, cantor, mises, Rothbard, rand, frankfurt, will, as Hayek suggested, go down in history as the second attempt to create a lie as a revolt against western truthfulness (rationalism and science).

–libertarianism is a straw dog —

Well, I think marxism/socialism is a great lie, just like randian/rothbaridian liberarianism is a great lie, just like straussian/kristol/trotskyism is a great lie.

BUT HERE IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING:

“If lying works we should use it”

AND HERE IS WHAT I AM SAYING

“Make lying in the commons a crime and eliminate lying from the public discourse, and we will win by default”

we are the most creative people that ever lived. And we have the bio data to tell us why now.

TRUTH IS ENOUGH

So stop trying to lie well, and instead learn how to tell the truth well, and how to prosecute liars well.

That’s my response. 😉

Responses

Curt: Who Are Your Influences?

—“Every philosopher can point out influences of which he may call his teachers or derive his ideas from. Nietzsche for instance read Schopenhauer, Epicurus, Plato, and Heraclitus among his other influences. So let us hear yours. How many people have you read, and who do you derive your thoughts from? (Btw, wikipedia level understanding does not count. You can’t cite someone as an influence unless you have read his works)”—

Well, I answer this question a few times a year. And it might surprise you but I read science, economics and history and I think most philosophy by almost all philosophers is little more than simply semi-secular theology or empty verbalism for the purpose of middle-class criticism of the status quo.

So in general, except for a few cases, I view philosophy largely as a poor investment as likely to do one harm as good just as philosophers have done as much or more harm as good. I would go so far as to say most philosophers are seeking to be creative liars.

My reading list is pretty extensive and published on my site. And I’ve read everything on it I think. Ramsey keeps all of the works in digital form in our library. And recently he has added new works to it that are relevant but that I have only skimmed.

There is something in the content of the neutral point of view we find in encyclopedias.  And aside from those works, I found  the Germanic Fairy Tales, Pinnocchio, Johnny Tremain, Ivanhoe, Harlan Ellison, Heinlein, Ben Bova, and all the postwar science fiction authors fairly influential – they were all libertarian.

I came to philosophy from artificial intelligence by way of Hayek and Popper – who were the first thinkers to suggest that we must study man using information not norms – just as we study physics now as information not forces.

But Aristotle created a framework for the study of knowledge, and that framework has persisted throughout the centuries: existence, epistemology/truth, ethics, politics, aesthetics. This structure provides a hierarchy that as from the universe to the self to the interpersonal to the political to the universal.

So when I wanted to create a language for the unloaded analysis and comparison of competing political strategies, and in particular to allow western aristocratic conservatives to rationally argue their strategy, I chose the structure of philosophy to do it because it’s the established language for discourse.

The big change for me was popper and Hayek, and when I heard Hoppe lecture I knew something wasnt quite right but that the answer was in there somewhere.

It took me years to get it right. By 2009 or so I had everything but one very hard problem. And solving that problem was the watershed: how to demand warranty of due diligence in matters of the commons.

So while I write what we call philosophy, Propertarianism solves the Wilsonian Synthesis and united science, philosophy, morality, and law.

What I am writing is natural law.

The Only Possible Epistemology, Ethics and Politics of Sovereignty.

Responses

Ten Thoughts on Money

Q&A: –“Curt, have you written much on money?”–

I’ve written a bit , here and there, mostly on:

1) the fact that fiat money is equal to shares in the state/economy, not notes or money. Moreover, I’ve tried to impress upon people that colloquial money (various mediums of exchange in sufficient volume to produce market price signals) and all its forms, differ substantially from money proper. And I’ve tried to correct mises and the bitcoin community on their uses of these terms – because it’s fraudulent to compare these media as having the same properties. They don’t’.

2) it’s not clear that people have any right to the appreciation of fiat money, nor whether they have a right to its store of value for any extended period of time (longer than a business cycle).

3) We should use multiple currencies for multiple purposes so that rates of inflationary dilution are purpose-specific.

4) There is no need to continue distribution of liquidity through the banking system as we did when there was hard currency. We can directly issue liquidity to consumers and cause spending without giving profits or power to the banking and finance system. This forces business and industry to fight for consumers, rather than fight for access to credit.

5) Money is information and the more kinds of money the more kinds of information we have that is less subject to distortion. I could write a book on this subject alone.

6) In theory money is neutral, in practice it is not. Not because prices are not eventually equilibrated, but because this process of equilibration works through the economy disruptively and without uniformity.

7) Lending should be regulated to the same degree as law, and debt should not be resellable because a price (value) is subjectively constructed and non-transferrable, and non-insurable.

8 ) Law has been abused to work in the favor of hazard-creation by lenders, and this should be inverted, and bankruptcy protection increased so that lenders have an extremely difficult time collecting and instead take fewer risks and take less responsibility for distributing liquidity.

9) intergenerational redistribution must be stopped, and the singaporean model adopted so that the future is calculable. Furthermore, this money cannot be touched by creditors or the state, or anyone else for that matter.

10 ) I would prefer that the government collected fees on all financial transactions rather than income taxes. I believe fees are necessary for the production of insurance of last resort, and those discretionary commons that make us competitive.

Those are the major topics.

Responses

Spanish Rule?

Q&A: —“I’ve been interested in the case of Spain for some time, as my ancestors are primarily Spanish. And I wanted to understand the reasons for the rise of the Spanish and if they had any philosophical contributions to the western World. If you saw no reason to comment on the Spanish, I don’t wish to take your attention away from something which could be more useful. But, if there is anything to say about the Spanish, I would certainly be willing to read what you have.”— David

David,

The Spanish question is interesting because Spanish philosophers were central to the Scholastic movement, the Spanish empire was so powerful, and so successful but rapidly evaporated under industrialization. So that the Spanish had lost their position by the time of the enlightenment’s transfer of power from the landed to the merchant classes, and the vast inte

The argument for why this happened is well understood:

1) The Spanish were a hardworking people, and meaningful commercial leaders as trade spread from the Mediterranean to the atlantic..

2) The peak in spanish contirbution to philosophy occurred in Catalan where the Translators of Toledo first translated greek texts from arabic into latin, then to catalan. This set of translations created what we know as the modern spanish language. And is probably the basis for what we call today ‘spain’. And it was the latin translations that reintroduced europe to science and philosophy.

3) The discovery of the new world created an enormous influx of gold (currency).Spain spent its wealth on wars, notably against the low countries (Netherlands).

4) As we see with Americans, unearned wealth tends to make a people lazy, and they seek status signals not productivity. And decline after wealth is very difficult for a people to work through.

5) With the people ‘ruined’ from this process of expansion, wealth, war, and failure to convert to industrialization, they did not produce an enlightenment on the scale of england, france, germany, or ashkenazi-dom (eastern europe and russia). And spain devolved into a relatively poor country despite being second only to the UK in the territorial expansion of spanish language and genetics.

6) Spanish cultural, military, and economic excellence was was the product of Austrian not Spanish rule. Just as eastern european excellence was the product of german and Austrian rule. (see Kennedy’s bookhttps://en.wikipedia.org/…/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Great_P…) And when the Hapsburgs declined, so did aristocratic influence in spain.

So, Spain went into decline, and she was unable to maintain her colonies when the Americans and British chose to deny her access to first the caribbean, and then south america. Read anything basic you can find on the rise and fall of Hapsburg Spain.

But I will say something uncomfortable:

That Spain ascended under Roman, Muslim, and Austrian rule, but could not maintain that ascent under her own rule. SO WHY IS THAT?

Something we must ponder. But most of us probably attribute this to geographic location, and mediterranean (hot weather) culture, catholicism, and the failure of Spainish culture to join the Hanjal Line and develop the absolute nuclear family, and low corruption we see in protestant countries that still practice ‘the oath’.

Curt Doolittle

Responses

More On Spain

I have learned this mostly from my friends in south america. And we now have the genetic data, testing data, and economic data to confirm it. But the problem facing south america is that there are just toooooo many people at the bottom for the people at the top to provide sufficient incentives to the middle class, who in turn will provide sufficient incenties to the lower class, so that it’s possible to productively organize society.

It’s not as bad as islamic countrires, where people are highly illiterate and where Islam teaches people that they can be emotionally expressive and emotionally impulsive. At least south american s are still christian. But it’s just almost impossible to create a window within which the people can be organized, and a sufficient middle class developed, to raise the population out of poverty.

2.5-Cooperation · Responses

No, Capitalism Isn’t Enough

–“trust isn’t necessary just capitalism”— Diego Anonymous

Diego,

Let me correct you a bit – largely by providing you with more precise language.

Capitalism – private production of goods and services by the universal distribution of private property rights – has always existed to some degree – it must for trade to exist.

But, cooperation at *scale* using institutions, that creates what we call ‘consumer capitalism’ requires high trust society.

Without high trust, states are necessary to organize sale and complex production, because of the risk required of all participants. States as the insurer of last resort, insure against ‘risk of defection’.

This is why centrally managed economies can be used to transform states from a condition of backwardness, but cannot be used to maintain them once backwardness is reduced and society reordered, or to create persistently competitive states where self-ordering produces consistent market innovation.

The only known way of producing high trust is evolution from common (negative) law, property rights for women, and the prohibition on inbreeding (cousin marriage). Common law insures against ‘risk of defection’.

The only known way of producing common (negative) law is evolution from a militia (Anglo-Saxon model).

The only known way of producing a professional bureaucracy is evolution from an army (french-german-prussian). (And this leads to napoleonic law of state vs people, not common natural-law of militias of universal equality)

The only known way of producing a libertarian (anglo-saxon) political order is with militia and common law, combining to provide sufficient suppression of free riding such that commons can be produced without defection preserving competitiveness, and private goods can be produced competitively.

One man may rule.
An Oligarchy may rule.
A professional bureaucracy may rule.
Or all may rule – thereby ensuring that none rules.

Rule of law (nomocracy);
The civic production of commons (liberalism);
The private production of goods and services (capitalism);
And the condition under which we experience all three (liberty);
Can each exist but they cannot exist without one another.

Responses

A Note On Argument – A Substitution For Violence

Paine,

We have free speech, logic and rhetoric so that we may make arguments, not a polysyllabic variant of ten year old girls trading insults.

I realize that you may resort to these tactics because you are incapable of seeking a truth via argument. I also realize that you post sufficiently in this forum with a small number of other apologists, that you feel justified in your alternate reality, and lack of intellectual rigor. But that does not mean that you are contributing to the dialog, or conducting an argument.

Altruism is incalculable (as in unknowable), and does not allow multiple people to cooperate QUANTITATIVELY toward any end requiring risk and action, nor in measuring and understanding outcomes, and it’s result does not produce status differentiation, which is a necessary component of the mating ritual. You are applying the method of the family wherein altruistic actions are perceptible and create an economy of altruistic exchange, rather than the economy wherein such exchanges are imperceptible, and therefore, absent a currency that allows measurement.

Calculable ends are not just a matter of preference but of necessity. Status attainment is not just a matter of preference but of necessity. Incentives are not just a matter of preference but of necessity. And the management of the worlds resources in time and space is not a matter of preference but of necessity, since the velocity of that set of exchanges and application in the fulfillment of human needs and wants is just as important as the volume of them.

In effect you are simply immature, and are applying the epistemological processes of the family to the extended order of human beings, when numerically, you cannot KNOW about large numbers of people what you can KNOW about a family.

Marx was effectively a luddite. And you are as well. We are only similar to one another as farmers and tribal hunter gatherers. But in a vast division of knowledge and labor spread across billions we are increasingly unequal in ability, when ability is judged as the increase in production that decreases prices, and the voluntary coordination of people so that they can act to reduce prices. We can redistribute some of these rewards, as long as the process of doing so is CALCULABLE enough so that status, incentive, and individual calculability are maintained. But we cannot be ‘fair’ as you mean it, because that kind of fairness is not possible to know, comprehend, or calculate. Most often class warriors like yourself simply seek to create a status among their peers by political means that cannot be established by material means.

Implicit in your postings (all of them) is a ‘freedom’ that you take for granted, yet do not understand. That is that we grant men free speech, in substitution for withholding our violence, so that we may seek the truth, not simply seek to achieve our ends – violence is a much easier tool for achieving ends. And since a state can only dispense violence — it is its only tool — that violence, and the state, are a continuation of that exchange of violence for seeking truth, not seeking ‘to win’. Therefore if you do not debate rationally, men need not withhold their violence against you. And if they do, they simply allow you to steal from the social order.

In other words, if you are not seeking truth and are name calling, then you are both stealing from the public wishing well by which we all pay for the act of free speech so that we may seek truth — not so that we may get what we want. And if it is just to get what we want, then not only can the weak revolt, and return to violence, but so can the strong. Some of us are possessed of petty interpersonal violence, some of us capable of protest and rabblery, some of us capable of slaughter and civil war. That the weak threaten violence is a humor, since the strong are more capable both of its execution, and of paying a minority handsomely to oppress or kill the discontents.

You may be one of those people for whom degradation of our ‘group’s’ competitive ability and therefore status and prosperity is acceptable. And if that is the case, then again, you steal from those who seek to perpetuate our advantage and prosperity, by failure to participate in argument.

You may be one of those people for whom this is a mask for envy and laziness and simply wants others to take care of you rather than earn for yourself and others.

You may be one of those people who is willing to consume cultural capital for current ends, and who is willing to steal from the sacrifices that were made by those generations that came before us.

You may be one of those people that thinks, despite the vast ocean of data, that people are infinitely plastic in their behavior, rather than that humans behave in very clear and established manners across all states, nations, civilizations and times, and therefore are a utopian.

I don’t know which of these errors you’re making. But I do know that your failure to engage in an argument, is to hide behind an electronic connection as a means of stealing from your fellow man.

This may be too subtle for you, but I am casting you as a thief, fool and liar who works against the public good, in order to obtain what you want by deceptive means, rather than what can be obtained by honest voluntary exchange, using the only tools and institutions of cooperation that man has so far invented – those that are calculable, and the institutions that make them so. You are part of the reason democratic capitalism has failed, and why totalitarian capitalism has emerged as the dominant economic force to be employed in the world.