PROPERTARIANISM: LECTURE : SOCIAL SCIENCE : MORALITY
I tried to give an exhaustively thorough analysis of morality.
Approximately 60 Minutes.
You may need to watch it more than once (I would). But it should give you a complete language for discourse on morality.
(video script outline)
Today I’m going to discuss morality.
– confusion over my position on morality.
— positive moral ambitions (gossip/rally/ambition)
— negative moral prohibitions (law/rule/prohibition)
— anything not immoral is moral.
— a philosopher’s, scientist’s and judge’s duty (and ability) is not to recommend shoulds but to discover, decide and enforce limits. It’s the artist’s, priest’s and public intellectuals duty to propose ‘goods’.
— I can say how institutions CAN be formed. I can say what we CANNOT do. But I do not claim a preference or wisdom over what we should do. That is a question of the MARKET for future wants. We calculate this together. The artists, priests, and public intellectuals make these arguments, and the market for commons can decide them.
— What I can say is that in the choice between the Aryan(aristocratic egalitarian) program of transcendence (heroism, innovation, and domestication), that a transcendent program (eugenic) is decidably superior top an experiential (dysgenic) program. And that we must retaliate against the experiential and dysgenic when it imposes costs upon the transcendent and eugenic by interference in the market for cooperation.
THE CONTINUATION OF WESTERN POLYTHEISM: A MYTHOS FOR EACH CLASS.
We all want a single replacement for monopoly christianity. The left does and the parasitic-state does in an attempt to create a monopoly of positive and utopian discretion rather than a monopoly of negative and empirical, natural law. But just as we evolve fastest and compete most successfully when we deconflate our institutions, it’s just as important that we deconflate our mythos. Why? Becuase each class uses a different argument structure.
Parsimony (‘complete’ science) (truth)
Operationalism (physical science) (physical and natural law)
Empiricism (social science and statistics) (systems)
Historicism (evidence) (existential examples)
Rationalism (noncontradiction) (precise meaning)
Theology (obedience) (social contract) (“religion”)
Reason (clarity) (analogistic understanding)
Morality (loyalty) (social contract) (“religion”)
Approval or disapproval. (opinion) (cognition)(myths)
Emotive expression (reaction) (pre-cognitive) (instincts)
We argue by class structure.
We need myths (methods of argument and narratives) that correspond to the needs of our classes.
In the past we even had three languages in the anglo world:
– Latin for the intellectuals
– French for the ruling class
– German for the working class.
– science for the intellectual class
– Law for the ruling class
– Contract for the merchant class
– Religion for the working class
– And our ‘family’ (hearth) religion remains our pagan one.
Today we have
– Natural law from the martial class
– Psuedoscience and democracy for the priestly class
– Science for the upper middle class
– Contractualism for the merchant classes
– Chrsitian Religion for the working classes
– State-Religion for the underclasses
Most life forms evolved to suffer predation by high reproduction.
Others to avoid predation, at the expense of lower reproduction.
Others to avoid predation and protect investments in offspring.
Others to avoid predation, protect offspring and protect territories.
Others to avoid predation, protect offspring, protect territories, and protect kin.
Others to … follow kin (imitate).
Others to … empathize with the intentions of kin.
Others to … late maturity, and the need to empathize with the young.
Others to … offer to assist with the intentions of others of our kin.
and at this point we can say we cooperate.
And cooperation is so profoundly beneficial to survival, reproduction, and production, that it gave us dominion over ourselves, and much of the natural world.
But upon our ability to cooperate we also retained our previous instincts to engage in parasitism and predation.
So we could either engage in cooperation, or parasitism and predation upon one another.
To defend against parasitism we evolved moral instincts and intuitions – we retaliate, even at very high cost to us, against those who engage in parasitism and predation. Because when we cooperate we obtain extremely high rewards for doing so.
Unfortunately, in the short term, free-riding, parasitism, and predation are extremely beneficial strategies for some at the expense of others.
Fortunately, we learn to retaliate against these impositions – or at least wait for an opportunity to retaliate when it’s possible for us to succeed.
Morality then consists in the incentive to cooperate (positive), the incentive to retaliate(negative), in order to preserve the incentive to cooperate at interpersonal, group, intergroup, and indirect scales, at any scale. And to prevent our conversion, depopulation, or conquest at any scale.
We do not reason through morality so much as feel it as an impulse to assist and a fear of retaliation. And we tend to exterminate those who possess less of it (sociopaths), and we tend to ignore or limit the damage done by those who possess too much of it (females and the weak who are overly concerned with defending against retaliation).
Moral actions then are those that impose no costs on those with whom you wish to avoid retaliation, and instead invest in the returns of cooperation, and conversely that you retaliate for the imposition of costs upon the results of others’ actions, to preserve the value of cooperation for all.
THE PROBLEM OF SCALE
As we cooperate in larger and larger numbers we need new means of providing incentives to cooperate INDIRECTLY, and incentives to prohibit INDIRECT parasitism.
As cooperation increases into a division of labor, the division of labor decreases transparency (audibility) and increases anonymity, so we divide up the positive: the labor of production, of knowledge, of perception, of value, and of advocacy. But we also divide up the negatives: the policing of our local groups against parasitism and predation internally and externally.
So, as we scale, instead of just individuals engaging in parasitism, groups and the leaders of groups engage in parasitism, and we merely transform the interpersonal problem of morality, into the inter-group problem of morality.
At this point in our history we organized to resolve intergroup parasitism, by suppressing local parasitism, imposing standard laws across groups, and creating what we consider ‘rule’. Rule is a profitable enterprise, both for the ruling and the ruled. Rulers centralize parasitism and suppress local parasitism, and make markets possible. Rule is a business. An industry. And like any business or industry it can be conducted productively or destructively. Thankfully it is very hard to conduct it parasitically for long. Thus the incentive of rulers (with intergenerational ambitions) is to create domestication (productivity) rather than parasitism.
As we scale further trade enforces universal COMMERCIAL conditions of exchange regardless of local rule. Thankfully commercial conditions of exchange reflect interpersonal conditions of exchange, so parasitism between people who trade tends to decrease.
However, as a consequence, it is possible for the organizers of production to engage in parasitism and predation. And initially, the courts possessed the power to regulate these matters, but during the industrial revolution, the state intervened and took away from the ordinary people the ability to judge such conflict, and the state intervened to seek rents (fees), because in the end, the state became the insurer of last resort to whom commercial interests pleaded in the case of malfeasance.
What we see today is the attempt to further exacerbate this order by creating a world government of extractions, rather than Natural Law, and world government as an insurer of last resort for such enforcements.
Our only solution is to incrementally suppress the centralization of parasitism that occurs with each increase in scale, by converting from what is probably a necessary centralization in order to suppress parasitisms, then the division of those functions into competing services regulated by the demand for natural law.
So this is the theory of the evolution of rule: the suppression of local parasitism and rents by the centralization of those rents, then the incremental suppression of those rents as they convert from fees for service to extractive parasitisms.
Government differs from Rule, in that its function is the provision of commons. The fact that we conflate government (commons production) and rule (suppression of parasitism) is another example of how conflationary argument and conflationary institutions explain the difference between rapidly evolving polities (west) and stagnating or declining polities (middle east), and very resistant polities (far east).
The only institutions I know of that are required for cooperation:
Military, Judiciary, Treasury, Government
And the only informal institutions I know of that are required for:
Property Registry, Banking, Education, Hospital, Police, Emergency.
And the only infrastructure institutions I know of that are required:
Transportation, Communication, Power, Insurance(Water, Air, Land, information)
And the only institutions I know of that are necessary for reproduction without parasitism are:
Family of some form from traditional to absolute nuclear.
Define Morality, Objectively.
As Natural Law: the preservation of the value of the incentive for cooperation and the elimination of the incentive for predation. Notice how I consistently illustrate the requirement for limits. It’s by stating botht he positive and negative that we demonstrate limits.
The asians unfortunately call this practice balance limited by harmony, and demanding duty, and stagnated because of it. The as westerners we call this practice limits, unbounded by heroism, and preserve innovation because of it. The muslims unfortunately sought submission under a fixed system of, and have declined because of it.
FIRST RULE OF LAW
Define Morality as the first condition of Law:
The law of non-imposition against property in toto.
The obligation to retaliate against imposition against property in toto.
Articulated as an increasingly complex portfolio of property rights.
Where a property right provides justification for retaliation against an aggressor without demand for corresponding punishment by the tribe.
Define Morality as Decidable Law :
The ability to decide differences in presumptions of harm or innocence regardless of opinion of the parties, regardless of the cultures the parties are from, regardless of the states the parties are from.
THE NORMATIVE “MORAL” SPECTRUM. MORAL BY ANALOGY.
Define Manners, Ethics, Morals,Strategies, Legislation.
Ethics: … between people
Morals: … anonymous
Group Strategies: …. see my other talk with butch.
Legislation: … punishment for exiting strategy.
NORMATIVE PORTFOLIOS ARE MORAL WITHIN GROUP ONLY, AND EVEN SO MAY NOT BE EXCEPT WITHIN STRATEGY.
And a strategy may or may not be moral, only (successful).
Define Normative Portfolios reflecting group strategies”
That these are contractual substitutes for morals, not objectively moral.
(Islam is an immoral strategy of full parasitism. judaism is an immoral strategy of commons-parasitism. Aryanism is a moral strategy in so far as domestication is transcendent. Hinduism and buddhism and confusianism appear to be less effective, but largely moral strategies.)
INEQUALITY OF MORAL PORTFOLIOS
Conflicting normative portfolios are not ‘equal’. And not relative at all. Some are lower trust more parasitic strategies, and some are higher trust lower parasitic strategies.
The more moral group is the one with the higher objectve suppression of parasitism – independent of group norms. The less moral group is the one with the lower objective suppression of parasitism – independent of group norms.
MAN IS RATIONAL – CAPABLE OF MORAL OR IMMORAL
Man is rational. He has moral and immoral intuitions (instincts). These intuitions (instincts) help him calculate costs. Man is neither moral or immoral, he is rational. He is immoral or moral when it is in his interests to be moral or immoral.
It is just almost always in his interests to act morally, since we retaliate so overwhelmingly when man and woman are not. In most circumstances, if one is not relatively safe from retaliation, parasitism, or predation, he will almost always choose moral action because even the risk of retaliation is not worth the benefit he claims from immoral action. This is why informational transparency is so important – it dramatically eliminates our ability to preserve incentives for immoral action, by making public the opportunity to retaliate.
And since many of us who possess any kind of property at all, any kind of sustenance at all, possess this same interest, we increasingly invent and evolve institutions that suppress parasitism, just as when we scale we evolve methods by which to conduct parasitism.
But no matter how we scale our institutions, the principle remains the same: impose no costs upon that which others
THE LIMITS OF MORALITY: THE EXTRA MORAL ACTIONS
We can engage in actions where we deem cooperation impossible, dangerous, or undesirable.
When we engage in these actions, we act amorally – outside the limits of morality, but only in so far as we do not expect retaliation for our actions. Its the measurement of retaliation that determines the limits of our actions, and the limits of retaliation alone.
I consider it moral to domesticate a group with lower objective morality and ambitions(islam), and immoral to corrupt a group with higher objective morality and ambitions(eastern europeans).
BEHAVIORAL PORTFOLIO – WE RETAIN AND EXPRESS ABILITIES AS NEEDED.
(discuss how we express classes as needed to compete)
(discuss how we express genes as needed to compete)
(discuss how we express norms as neded to compete )
(discuss how we can express laws as needed to compete)
(discuss how fast we can do each.)
MAN’S COOPERATION IS BOUND BY PHYSICAL LAW AS WELL AS NATURAL LAW
Nature can exchange freely available energy and transform state. By analogy we can take only freely available energy from one another by exchange.