“Fed” like “Supremacist” and “Racist” is a Compliment. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/fed-like-supremacist-and-racist-is-a-compliment/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 21:31:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265032833162231808
Jan 18, 2020, 3:30 PM
–“Hey Curt Doolittle funny thing, now I hear John Mark is a Fed. Are y’all going to get matching Gray jumpers and cats?”–A Friend
I dunno, the whole James bond villain thing fits me just fine, because I love the chaos, but I think john would be more like something between Sir Thomas Moore and Cardinal Richelieu. Humor: “Fed” like “Supremacist” and “Racist” is a compliment. The first says you aren’t a coward, and the second says you know your history, and the third says you’re not a liar – and it says the opposite about the person calling you names.
Jan 18, 2020, 3:30 PM
–“Hey Curt Doolittle funny thing, now I hear John Mark is a Fed. Are y’all going to get matching Gray jumpers and cats?”–A Friend
I dunno, the whole James bond villain thing fits me just fine, because I love the chaos, but I think john would be more like something between Sir Thomas Moore and Cardinal Richelieu. Humor: “Fed” like “Supremacist” and “Racist” is a compliment. The first says you aren’t a coward, and the second says you know your history, and the third says you’re not a liar – and it says the opposite about the person calling you names.
Nitwits from The Critique Gallery https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/nitwits-from-the-critique-gallery/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 21:13:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265028268572499976
Jan 19, 2020, 8:30 AM
—“Yet, you believe the pseudoscientific cherry picking by “experts” like Judith curry, Tim ball, Richard lindzen etc on the topic of climate change, so much for argument from authority. Just because you dont comprehend the math behind probablistic models used in quantum models, doesn’t mean they are invalid”—Rash Ak
(a) Curry is the best most neutral skeptic (I don’t recognize ball or linden) and I was directly involved with the movement deeply enough to criticize the people, their malincentives and the failure of its predictions. It’s this behavior and the failure of the predictions I criticize. My position has been, and remains: overpopulation by the underclass is the problem not energy use or consumption. I don’t know yet how much affect we’re having or if that effect is meaningful, and if it’s meaningful the I’m not confident it’s bad. And I”m not confident it’s bad, because this warm interglacial is preferable to the norm: glacial. And even if we determine it’s meaningful and bad then I don’t see any solution to the problem other than vast reduction in human population. (b) I comprehend the math just fine, which is why I clearly articulate the cause and consequence of ‘mathiness’ as use of probabilism because the underlying causal relations are still unknown. And the reason I do so is the parallel between the problems of physics, economics, and mathematics, because of the late 19th and early 20th reversion to pre-descartian math just as hilbert complained. (c) the quantum and the relativistic models are in conflict for the reasons I’ve described – we have no geometric (classical model) that explains the distribution of probability across the wave form. (d) Nit: validity is an unscientific term left over from justificationary philosophy., and imported from mathematics (test of internal consistency). Instead: Repeatable, demonstrable, explanatory, consistent, coherent. You will be very hard pressed to find other than one of the best professors of physics or mathematics who can or will debate me on this subject. You aren’t capable of this conversation or you would have made a different criticism. And you are clearly pulling sh-t out of your a– from a troll (fake) account to engage in female-jewish critique because you can’t construct an argument on equally articulate terms.
Jan 19, 2020, 8:30 AM
—“Yet, you believe the pseudoscientific cherry picking by “experts” like Judith curry, Tim ball, Richard lindzen etc on the topic of climate change, so much for argument from authority. Just because you dont comprehend the math behind probablistic models used in quantum models, doesn’t mean they are invalid”—Rash Ak
(a) Curry is the best most neutral skeptic (I don’t recognize ball or linden) and I was directly involved with the movement deeply enough to criticize the people, their malincentives and the failure of its predictions. It’s this behavior and the failure of the predictions I criticize. My position has been, and remains: overpopulation by the underclass is the problem not energy use or consumption. I don’t know yet how much affect we’re having or if that effect is meaningful, and if it’s meaningful the I’m not confident it’s bad. And I”m not confident it’s bad, because this warm interglacial is preferable to the norm: glacial. And even if we determine it’s meaningful and bad then I don’t see any solution to the problem other than vast reduction in human population. (b) I comprehend the math just fine, which is why I clearly articulate the cause and consequence of ‘mathiness’ as use of probabilism because the underlying causal relations are still unknown. And the reason I do so is the parallel between the problems of physics, economics, and mathematics, because of the late 19th and early 20th reversion to pre-descartian math just as hilbert complained. (c) the quantum and the relativistic models are in conflict for the reasons I’ve described – we have no geometric (classical model) that explains the distribution of probability across the wave form. (d) Nit: validity is an unscientific term left over from justificationary philosophy., and imported from mathematics (test of internal consistency). Instead: Repeatable, demonstrable, explanatory, consistent, coherent. You will be very hard pressed to find other than one of the best professors of physics or mathematics who can or will debate me on this subject. You aren’t capable of this conversation or you would have made a different criticism. And you are clearly pulling sh-t out of your a– from a troll (fake) account to engage in female-jewish critique because you can’t construct an argument on equally articulate terms.
i do true. you keep your lies.
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 20:00:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265009804751273990
Reply addressees: @Asweetpoison1
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264976261463638016
Liber-Tardians … Useful Idiots of The Enemy https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/liber-tardians-useful-idiots-of-the-enemy/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 19:50:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265007397178871809
Jan 21, 2020, 4:11 PM
—“I’ll bet I used [Propertarianism] before you ever did. It is amusing that you think”–
Well if you’ll bet, then how much, and what evidence can you present to back your case?
—“2. You would suppress the imposition of costs by inventing counterfeit property, such as a property in things like social trust, average IQ, and feelings of safety.”—
You have to arbitrarily choose something other than demonstrated interest. (This is how Abrahamic Pilpul is used to create an internally consistent set of justificationary lies – and of course you fell for it.)
Humans can’t know scarcity, only demonstrated interest. Look up the origin of the concept of scarcity.
Humans only know objective demonstration of interest and subjective value. Humans could only have evolved identification of value, demonstrated interest, and subjective value. We can’t know scarcity only ignorance.
Any attempt to refute my position is an attempt to refute subjective value, and you would have a very hard time doing that. 😉
Humans can’t avoid conflict by simply being ignorant of the resources necessary to demonstrate an interest something, we can only avoid conflict by knoweldge that others have used resources to demonstrate an interest, and continue to demonstrate that interest.
What you are missing is (a) scarcity of a good is a circular reasoning. (b) that demonstrated interest is the scarcity, (b) that cooperation is the ultimate scarcity, (c) that reciprocity (non imposition against demonstrated interest) is the only means of preserving that cooperation. (d) that those who impose costs upon demonstrated intersets are the only source of conflict over the POTENTIAL to obtain returns on one’s demonstrated interests.
Your opinion on what imposition of costs upon their demonstrated interests does not matter to others or the headman, counsel, court that must resolve conflicts when demonstrated interest is always and everywhere the means of decidability. In other words, you can try to advocate for leaving open the possibility of parasitism upon and harm against others, but it doesn’t mean anything to others, it’s just a lie you and yours tell yourselves to try to justify parasitism upon others and harm against others intersets. Morality is what other people won’t harm or kill you for, and the only reason not to harm or kill you is the value of your cooperation versus non-cooperation, uncooperative-competition, free riding, parasitism, predation upon anything that the use whatsoever to create and preserve their returns on cooperation. In other words, it doesn’t matter what you think – it matters what others do and you can negotiate for survival with them. (This is why I use science not justificationary pilpul like jewish rothbard and jewish-trained Hoppe.
Hoppe is trying to restore free cities but to do so by free riding on on other’s states. Rothbard is trying to restore jewish separatism by free riding on the same states. They’re both trying to justify free riding. There is only one source of determining your rights: the use of organized violence at personal risk to deny others the alternative. The problem is that the only way to hold territory and population is with economic production hence the universal creation of increasingly suppressive laws against parasitism in every empire so that economic velocity is highest, and returns highest, and therefore military capacity highest. )
I do science. Y’all do pilpul (sophistry). Jewish sophistry (pilpul and critique, GSRRM, false promise, baiting into hazard) is the most sophisticated form of deception yet invented by man, just as science is the most sophisticated form of truthful testimony invented by man. There are many means of lying by sophistry, including numerology, astrology, pseudoscience, theology, but the means of lying without appeal to anything external to language is Sophism. The reason it’s effective – weaving internal consistently out of self referentiality – is because it does not, like science, appeal to reality for closure (decidability). Instead the technique seeks to overwhelm (overload) reason (modeling) causing an appeal to moral intuition. Once you understand it’s just a technique of deception that like any other technique that can be mastered, it’s relatively easy to identify. The problem is untangling the self-referentiality rather than modeling the consequences in reality – which is what it seeks to undermine.
Anyway. I don’t err. We all make mistakes. I very rarely err. And since this is my primary line of research I certainly don’t err in this case. I can’t. The science says so.
Jan 21, 2020, 4:11 PM
—“I’ll bet I used [Propertarianism] before you ever did. It is amusing that you think”–
Well if you’ll bet, then how much, and what evidence can you present to back your case?
—“2. You would suppress the imposition of costs by inventing counterfeit property, such as a property in things like social trust, average IQ, and feelings of safety.”—
You have to arbitrarily choose something other than demonstrated interest. (This is how Abrahamic Pilpul is used to create an internally consistent set of justificationary lies – and of course you fell for it.)
Humans can’t know scarcity, only demonstrated interest. Look up the origin of the concept of scarcity.
Humans only know objective demonstration of interest and subjective value. Humans could only have evolved identification of value, demonstrated interest, and subjective value. We can’t know scarcity only ignorance.
Any attempt to refute my position is an attempt to refute subjective value, and you would have a very hard time doing that. 😉
Humans can’t avoid conflict by simply being ignorant of the resources necessary to demonstrate an interest something, we can only avoid conflict by knoweldge that others have used resources to demonstrate an interest, and continue to demonstrate that interest.
What you are missing is (a) scarcity of a good is a circular reasoning. (b) that demonstrated interest is the scarcity, (b) that cooperation is the ultimate scarcity, (c) that reciprocity (non imposition against demonstrated interest) is the only means of preserving that cooperation. (d) that those who impose costs upon demonstrated intersets are the only source of conflict over the POTENTIAL to obtain returns on one’s demonstrated interests.
Your opinion on what imposition of costs upon their demonstrated interests does not matter to others or the headman, counsel, court that must resolve conflicts when demonstrated interest is always and everywhere the means of decidability. In other words, you can try to advocate for leaving open the possibility of parasitism upon and harm against others, but it doesn’t mean anything to others, it’s just a lie you and yours tell yourselves to try to justify parasitism upon others and harm against others intersets. Morality is what other people won’t harm or kill you for, and the only reason not to harm or kill you is the value of your cooperation versus non-cooperation, uncooperative-competition, free riding, parasitism, predation upon anything that the use whatsoever to create and preserve their returns on cooperation. In other words, it doesn’t matter what you think – it matters what others do and you can negotiate for survival with them. (This is why I use science not justificationary pilpul like jewish rothbard and jewish-trained Hoppe.
Hoppe is trying to restore free cities but to do so by free riding on on other’s states. Rothbard is trying to restore jewish separatism by free riding on the same states. They’re both trying to justify free riding. There is only one source of determining your rights: the use of organized violence at personal risk to deny others the alternative. The problem is that the only way to hold territory and population is with economic production hence the universal creation of increasingly suppressive laws against parasitism in every empire so that economic velocity is highest, and returns highest, and therefore military capacity highest. )
I do science. Y’all do pilpul (sophistry). Jewish sophistry (pilpul and critique, GSRRM, false promise, baiting into hazard) is the most sophisticated form of deception yet invented by man, just as science is the most sophisticated form of truthful testimony invented by man. There are many means of lying by sophistry, including numerology, astrology, pseudoscience, theology, but the means of lying without appeal to anything external to language is Sophism. The reason it’s effective – weaving internal consistently out of self referentiality – is because it does not, like science, appeal to reality for closure (decidability). Instead the technique seeks to overwhelm (overload) reason (modeling) causing an appeal to moral intuition. Once you understand it’s just a technique of deception that like any other technique that can be mastered, it’s relatively easy to identify. The problem is untangling the self-referentiality rather than modeling the consequences in reality – which is what it seeks to undermine.
Anyway. I don’t err. We all make mistakes. I very rarely err. And since this is my primary line of research I certainly don’t err in this case. I can’t. The science says so.