(I live to serve.). π
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-15 01:45:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790559105028927994
Reply addressees: @TarzanWannaBe
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790559031288819895
(I live to serve.). π
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-15 01:45:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790559105028927994
Reply addressees: @TarzanWannaBe
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790559031288819895
RT @WerrellBradley: @curtdoolittle appears to live rent free in my cranium…
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-15 01:01:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790548065239044115
(a) Thank you for the reminder. π
(b) (Grow up) π Don’t play kiddie games with me. You’re a newb, and those you’re referring to are clearly newbs, and you’re asking me to repeat what I’ve written about extensively before π I do not exactly place value on the opinions of newbs about me or my work. I’m merely attempting to do my job and moral duty assisting libertarians (suckers) into moving from sophomoric philosophy to empiricism, science, operationalism (strict construction), and law. π
(c) Now, I would like to write something new that is easier to access and understand for y’all. This is the easiest way to demonstrate the folly of argumentation as the criteria. (Which is rather silly really).
(d) If you PM me your email address I’ll send you the draft of the book I wrote back in the teens, but didn’t finish and publish: “Liberty to Sovereignty” which addresses these issues and attempts to ‘save’ libertarianism. As I continued my work, I didn’t want to be associated with libertarians any longer. So it made no sense. So I’ll send you a copy, but only after you confirm that you’ll treat it as confidential and not share it, because I’ll hold you accountable if you do (and we do law here at the Institute for goodness sake). π
Thanks again for persistence.
Hugs π
CD
Reply addressees: @LudwigSkeptic @FerghaneA @PLIB_fr @ViandeTiede666 @Cobra_FX_ @PBlanrue @arthurhomines @NIMH_Rage @RageCultureMag @Doomit_Doomit @PaduStream @Etienne_Chouard @ObjectivismeFR @cercle_cobalt @Bunker_D_ @JRochedy @MonsieurPhi @liberteadoree @fare @VillonAdam
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-15 00:39:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790542543219785728
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790515880561967314
RT @DRolandAnderson: I notice they only shoot the messenger when heβs correct.
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-14 21:27:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790494076569006239
Again, you (and I, and most people somewhere on the spectrum) tend to not grasp the need or want, or utility of groups relying on others for information, for incentives, for moral justification, to act to gether to achieve a goal.
We are what’s called ‘disagreeable’ in the literature, but what that means is that we are not easily swayed by empathy or social conformity or emotional appeals vs truth.
That’s not a ‘truth’ it’s a utility in the division of cognitive and emotional labor necessary to explore all time and population distributions in the polity.
Reply addressees: @CamoDiver
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-14 21:26:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790493998525624320
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790484072340296057
ARE EITHER COOPERATION OR CONFLICT “NATURAL”
(where natural means evolutionary solution to a problem of survival(persistence).)
Predation is natural between species, war is natural between species, subspecies, groups, and individuals, conflict is natural within a group, competition is a solution to conflict, and cooperation varies by the neurological predictability of the species and class, but it is the OPTIMUM MEANS of defeating conflict, competition, war, and predation.
Reply addressees: @radiofreenw
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-14 21:23:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790493116962570241
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790487341003337814
you’re one of many who have asked, and I suppose I should write an article explaining this position, even though I think I’ve covered the arc of french egoism to replace the roman empire as the ruler of europe rather frequently.
I”m kind of slammed with work for the next monthβ¦
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-14 21:18:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790491953445892546
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790491343653073203
this is correct.
BTW apologies for not recognizing this was the source of your disagreement in the past. π
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-14 20:39:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790482168210129071
Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS @radiofreenw
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790478776754753624
DEMONSTRATED INTEREST? WHAT’S AN INTEREST?
What if all x companies compete for a deal. Haven’t they “demonstrated interest”. Confusion over both of the terms demonstrated and interest: They haven’t demonstrated (performed an action at cost) to perform a voluntary transfer of interests (assets) until the deal is compete (exchanged). Otherwise anyone who bid on the deal would hold a fractional interest (ownership) in the revenue from the deal, without having to perform the work (deliver, exchange).
Opportunities the property of the issuer at least, and are a commons at most, until privatized(transferred) by a reciprocal exchange.
ETYMOLOGY
This is the difference between the original and still pervasive etymology in financial and legal definition of interest and the evolution of that term as the colloquial ‘interesting’. “To be between (possession) > to be important (valuable) > to compensation for a loss (asset) > broadened to general financial financial considerations > the cost of borrowing money > the idea of having a stake or involvement in something > colloquialized: intellectual curiosity (analogy).
One does not have an interest (ownership) until one has demonstrated an interest (born a cost by investing in and therefore creating something new ‘from the wild’), or born a cost in voluntary exchange of assets(reciprocity). One may possess an item, by stealing it, or one may falsely claim one has an exclusive interst inall or some asset, but one must bear a cost to transform (transfer) the state (ownership) of the asset.
You must demonstrate an interests to hold an interest, and thus convert an opportunity or possession to property the control over which is insured by yourself and others against involuntary transfer.
Cheers
CD
Reply addressees: @radiofreenw
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-14 20:38:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790481956146126848
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790477022470300024
THE LAW OF OPPORTUNITIES
We do not ‘own’ (a demonstrated interests) in opportunities until we have performed an exchange(settlement) to obtain(possess) them, thus converting the commons of a market opportunity to a private transaction by the satisfaction of the wants of bothβ¦ https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1790477533827224039
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-14 20:24:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790478214722179113