Curt Doolittle updated his status.

(FB 1550407650 Timestamp)


The law exists so that those with material interests (power) preserve the value of cooperation by forcing people into, and limiting them to, the market, and denying them non-market means (within the limits of cost and ability).

Propertarianism explains how to use this law (logic) to suppress those forms of parasitism that are currently not, because we lacked a means of doing so. In particular (and I have only come to understand this myself over the past few years) it suppresses baiting into moral hazard, which is the general technique of exploitation that is in use. (including your sophism above).

P it’s purely empirical. “people do this”, “this is why”, “self interest of those with interests”, “where almost all but the marginal cases have interests.”

You can build any political order with P that you want precisely because it is an algorithmic logic (grammar), as long as you do it truthfully.

To falsify P would require you falsify rational choice, reciprocity, and self interest. To state you would prefer to built some other form of government no matter how honest or dishonest, productive or parasitic, would still be explicable in P, and peoples’ behavior under it would still be universally expliable with P, because P is not a philosophy (should) but a science (is). It is the science and logic of what we call the psychological, linguistic, social sciences, and political sciences.

Now you can ‘bitch’ about the fact that I use this logic to advocate for rule of law – the most parsimonious expression of that science – because you like or do not like that particular world (because it would crush ‘creativity in dishonesty’) which means ‘witty people’ have no more utility in their manipulation of others in order to obtain self image, social status, and various forms of influence. But that is the point altogether.

P is simply ‘true’. What you do it it is a matter of your (power-group’s) preferences. I prefer to crush the abrahamic deceits (baiting into moral hazard by sophisms, pseudosciences, supernaturalisms, and deceits) and to use this to save my people from their lies. Maybe you prefer otherwise.

But I am fairly sure that the mainstream will prefer my argument and policy recommendations over the alternatives and this lowers their resistance to its implementation relative to your alternatives.

Again. Please don’t try to be smarter. You aren’t in the first place (even close) and P is quite a superpower – just like reason, empiricism, and science were superpowers before it.

The more I use P, the better I get at it, the more I understand the revolution in human thought and experience that would be brought about is as great as the previous revolutions provided by western thought (reason, empiricism, science).

Leave a Reply