Stay with Arguments To The End

(nonsense. example of the problem of the paradigmatic shift of propertarianism given the shift created in the informational commons by the internet)

Well, I”m glad that we stuck with it long enough to fully demonstrate your egoism, rallying, shaming, and ad hom’s, and how assuming you have the faintest idea what argument is being made, only demonstrates your inflated self image.

[–]despicable_secret -1 points 7 days ago
For some extra fun, watch Curt have no idea how Wikipedia works.

(a) As i’ve wasted my time demonstrating, not only do I know how it works…
(b) .. but I actively rebel against ‘how it works’. Why?
(c) Because it damages the informational commons.
(d) It damages the informational commons by reinforcing the institutionalized paradigm of the (critical theory) left’s status quo.
(e) And the purpose of my work is to expand Natural Law to incorporate Testimonial Truth (Complete Scientific Truth), so that it is impossible to create paradigms through control of or funding of media – by supplying the only competition falsehoods (frauds) require: law.

Just as you are a thief of the territorial, physical and normative commons by advocating libertinism, you’re a thief of the informational commons by justifying a paradigm (method) that damages the informational commons. You don’t KNOW you’re a parasite. But you are. Just as the leftists are parasites on private property, you are on territorial, material, and informational common property. We can either pay the cost of policing the commons (territorial, physical, institutional, normative, and informational), or we free-ride on the policing of others. One who possesses sovereignty in fact by perfect reciprocity CANNOT fail to police the commons without violating the contract for perfect reciprocity. This is what separates the SOVEREIGN IN FACT from those who experience LIBERTY BY PERMISSION of sovereigns.

So you see, it’s not that I dont’ know how it works. It’s precisely *because* I know how it works. Which if you read the text of the post was my point: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and by this process the editor (which is common on wikipedia), constructed original research via negativa. (Although I agree this is probably above your head as much as it was the editor, that doesn’t matter. The record of these arguments is a demonstration of the fact: research, development, and education have moved to non-curated forms on the web, that are verifiable in existence, but cannot use *appeal to the authority of the curator*.

The correct criticism which he or she could have levied was that ‘it’s not notable at its current level of popularity in curated media. The reason being that the right libertarian, dark enlightenment, propertarian movements have originated in a period where discourse has moved to the web, which is a non-curated (reviewed) medium, because it is a free (or largely) free medium of publishing, distribution, and consumption.

And this is why everyone wants me to publish (before I am done). Because that produces the record. My personal view is the only reason to publish is to create the record, because I have no need or want of money, and could publish entirely on the web, and keep a live-document running with live contributions – which is my plan.

Again, you never had any intention of inquiry, never to understand, never to TEST YOUR HYPOTHESIS – but simply to cowardly rally, shame, and ridicule as a means of defending your malinvestment in priors. You lack agency. You are not fully human. You are too weak to inquire.

But, while the cost of policing and prosecuting your various forms of parasitism has been high, in exchange I am able to use this as a record to show others just how difficult and expensive it is to police the informational commons.

Thanks for taking the bait. Those who lack agency, who are not fully human, who seek liberty by permission rather than sovereignty in fact, are easily caught by the bait.

Why? Because the ego lies.

You assumed a paradigm. You did not seek, as a scientist does, to refute your paradigm. You sought to confirm yours.



Leave a Reply