Feb 3, 2020, 10:25 AM
People who want status or attention because they are rejected by the groups they work, live, or associate with, seek some sort of means of feeling they are winning – so they find a single lever (libertarianism, leftism, a philosophical frame, or a religion) and double down on it because it is their only means of obtaining some sense of success in the world through the expression of their preferences by dominance rather than by cooperation. This is an understandable human behavior. We cannot expect people to not negotiate or advance (or bully) for obtaining resources, status, cooperation, in a world where all three are scarce. … However, regardless of our preferences and wants we can argue for reciprocity or we can argue for irreciprocity. Or we can simply act irreciprocally by conquest if negotiation does not succeed, and separation is not possible. So one can argue in concert with the physical world or not. One can argue in concert with the social world or not. One can act in concert with the social world or not. But the reverse of each of those statements cannot be said, without one being a fool, a liar, and a thief – and thereby abandoning your sovereignty and entering into a condition of war where all morality is off the table. P is a method. That method defines reciprocity. And it states the limit of that reciprocity. And beyond that reciprocity there is no moral question – only war.