( very important piece ) ( propertarianism core )
1 – Either we are engaged in productive, fully informed(truthful), warrantied (skin in the game), voluntary transfers (exchanges), free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated investments of others (externalities), or we are not.
2 – Every forced transfer is a lost opportunity for exchange – even if an exchange of good, for norm (behavior).
3 – In other words, all demands for goods independent of exchange are simply use of threats of disassociation (boycott) as a means of extraction (rent seeking).
IGNORANCE IS NOT EXCUSE FOR FAILURES OF DUE DILIGENCE
The fact that one has habituated a means of deception (continental conflationary philosophy and literature) rather than habituated a means of transparency (anglo analytic deflation – ie: science and law) and therefore argues for the profoundly dishonest and immoral out of cultural habit, has nothing to do with whether one INTENDS to argue immorally – it just means one’s CULTURE is endemically immoral. Which is just an argument to ignorance. It doesn’t absolve you from the failure of due diligence for the consequences of your display, speech, or action.
Reciprocity (morality) requires one do nothing (by display, word, or deed) that one cannot perform restitution for – else one is externalizing risk upon others (conducting a theft). And some costs are impossible to perform restitution for. For example, what has been the cost of the pseudosciences and pseudo-rationalisms and pseudo-histories, of the French (Derrida, Rorty, et all) and Ashkenazi (Marx, Boas, Freud, Cantor, Adorno (et all), Mises, Rothbard, Leo Strauss) – all failures of due diligence against the immorality of their habits (cultural assumptions and argumentative grammar)?
If you cannot make an operational argument in economics and politics ( that means a procedural model) that tests your theory then you do not know of what you speak. These people made Rousseauian (false) assumptions of human nature, and economic possibility – most notably because Rousseau was a profoundly immoral (irreciprocal) man, and the entirety of the french and ashkenazi, and some of the german intelligentsia, produce a reactionary movement misrepresented as ‘the enlightenment’, as always do people of armies, or of diaspora, seeking ‘liberty’ and thereby lacking the ‘sovereignty’ of the scandinavian sea-farers. They attempted to return the church’s demands upon others (appeals to the common good) counter to the british (anglo empirical) intellectual revolution (markets in everything.)
In law, (conflict resolution by tests of reciprocity), and in war (conflcit prevention by tests of reciprocity), we do not make excuses for ignorance – ignorance and indiscipline (failure of due diligence) are just means of reducing costs and externalizing risk upon others. That is what these people did. They were liberated (no thanks to them) by the atlantic transport, agrarian, and industrial revolutions and made arguments that they were ‘kept down’, and politically liberated, rather than that they *sexual, social, and political market value*, and that with increased productivity they could not consume vastly more of everything, and create a little market value despite their lower previous market value.
GRAMMARS OF TRUTH AND DECEIT
Argument in the broadest sense (colloquial persuasion) is a technology like any other, consisting of a hierarchy of grammars (rules of continuous disambiguation covering the spectrum from sounds through sentences), from the intuitionistic logics through mathematics, physics, contract, testimony, fiction, and the fictionalisms (‘mythologies) through the deceits.
Those grammars are either deflationary, commensurable, and testable, or they are not – and instead, like all fictions, operate by suggestion using selection, obscurantism, loading, framing, overloading. And they all make use of the trust (free association) we place in one another when listening (opening ourselves to suggestion for the purpose of communication).
So one can create or criticize a model in deflationary prose, or one can create or criticize a fictionalism in conflationary (selected, obscurant, loaded, framed, overloaded) prose.
That technique we call ‘critique’ is simply the modern version of ‘pilpul’ (Religious interpretation, numerology, astrology) which seeks to criticize (straw man) some solution without creating a testable model open to transparent comprehension, and thereby taking advantage of the fact that in that overloaded state you will (the human mind must) appeal to intuition by free association. In other words, you will substitute whatever you think and feel, thereby creating a sense of agreement on critique without agreement on MODEL (actions, reciprocity, and consequences.)
That is a very techichical means of saying that ALL CRITIQUE IS LYING BY SUGGESTION. Either you can propose a complete alternative model or you can’t.
(Think on that one a bit and be justifiably horrified.)
ALL CRITIQUE IS LYING
Critique is simply the technology invented in the Levant for the purpose of ‘selling’ the monotheisms to the underclasses as a revolt against the great civilizations of the ancient world – but this time in pseudo-scientific (ashkenazi marxist) and pseudo-rational (french post modern ) prose.
We are all gene machines. Hence why the language of science(due diligence), and natural law (reciprocity) are so important to speech, and why literature and literary argument are always and everywhere – like most of intellectual history – attempts at some form of fraud.
Apr 17, 2018 9:58am