Notes On Various Topics

Sep 04, 2016 12:26pm

– The academy uses ‘reported’ vs ‘stated’ preference. We correctly use ‘demonstrated’ preference.

– Why do you have the right to depreciate the normative values others have invested in as a flag? I mean, if I bore a cost to create a norm, and there is nothing false in the norm, then why is it you can cause damage to the norm? This is how people treat symbols. So if free speech is lmited to truthful speech, then these are not questions any longer.

– Natural Property = that which we expend time, effor,t resources, risk, to obtain without imposing costs upon that which otheres have expended time, effort, resources, risk, to obtain

– Starting with the choice of predation, parasitism, boycott, cooperation, or buying options on future cooperation.

– The strong are always paying the cost of non-parasitism, non-predation upon you. THe only reason to refrain from non-parasitism and non-predation is if you boycott, cooperate, or buy options on the future of cooperation. The question is, then, what’s the limit of things you agree not to engage in non-parasitism and non-predation against? Well, it depends upon the terms of your existing social order. If you have a low trust order with no commons, or a high trust order with lots of commons, you defend that what you’ve invested in. If you’ve invested in high trust high commons society, then you defend those things that comprise it. If you don’t then you don’t defend, and you act parasiticall against them. This is what high trust people object to: parasitism upon their investment in the high trust commons. And high trust peoples are stronger for the simple reason that they are wealthier and can produce more competitive commons – not the least of which is warfare.

This is why polities with different (lower and higher) property definitions are not compatible.

The purpose of testimonial Truth: To state how to construct contract, legislation, and law, and how to promote contract, legislation, and law, such that it is almost impossible to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, propaganda, and deceit.

Once we have testimonial truth, we can treat information – like air, land, and water – as a commons. We can grant people universal standing in matters of the commons. And preserve universal applicability to all people. This creates a market with both opportunity to issue ideas, and juridical defense against fraudulent and harmful ideas. (scientists do this already really). We could not limit speech to truthful speech without a legally testable criteria. Testimonialism provides lawyers, prosecutors, juries and judges with criteria that can be stated in law and adjudicated like many other laws.

Normative adoption of testimonialism would produce giant gains equal to *science over mysticism*.

We are feeling the effects of the second great deception. The first was monotheistic utopian mysticism, and the second has been pseudoscientific utopianism. So it’s not just that I want to eliminate error. It’s that I want to eliminate deception in all its unconsious, justifiationary, wishful, and intentional forms. THat requires we elminate error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, propagandizing and deceit.

Separating approval and disapproval, truth and falsehood, so that we can conduct trades. Approval is on ly necessary in small groups. Everything else requries just truth and exchange. The reason we must engage in approval and disapproval, is only when we are determining the use of common property. If we are discussing private property then approval is irrelevant. If we are trying to determine the use of common property at scale, we can only do that through truth and trade and full accounting, not approval or disapproval.

Even if we say that someone has the right to use drugs, does that mean you have the right to SELL them drugs? So if you grow your own pot, smoke it at home, and don’t operate machinery or impose sound or light or behavioral costs on your neighbors, then that’s fine. I am not sure how one could make the argument that he has the right to sell goods that will lead to harm regardless of the individual’s volition.

This same strategy applies to copyrights and the creative commons licenses. I can understand prohibiting profiting from the creative works of others, but I can’t understand how you can prohibit someone from copying something for personal use. Conversely, I don’t see how you can claim you have a right to profit from creations of ideas – unless the polity has provided off book compensation to if you’re conducting basic research.

The use of the natural, common, judge-discovered law, markets for reproduction(marriage), markets for goods and services, markets for commons, allows for the most rapid identification of new forms of parasitism and predation, and their immediate prohibition with the first case adjudicated. This allows societies to adapt positively (markets) and negatively (courts) faster than any OTHER POSSIBLE method of cooperation. Furthermore, since there are not AGGREGATES involved in the prodcess of case by case adjudication, and no CONSENT necessary for the production of reproduction, consumption, and commons, then public discourse an remain EMPIRICAL rather than AGGREGATE (moral, religious, allegorical).

So this is the reason that the west developed FASTER in the ancient and modern worlds, than the rest of the world. This is the secret of the west. Sovereignty, Truth, Jury, Judge, natural, jduge discovered, common law, and as a consequence, the only possible means of cooperation under sovereignty, truth, jury, judge, natural, judge-discovered common law, is markets for reproduction (marriage), markets for production, markets for commons, market for dispute resolution, and the militia that fights together.

Democracy then is antithetical since by eliminating the multi-house-government, and engaging in reproductoin, we have destroyed secred of the western excelllence.


Leave a Reply