I’ll debate/discuss IDEAS with you, but are you sure you really want such a debate or discussion? What if you will lose, or find out that you’re wrong? What if you will lose or find out that you’re wrong badly? What if you have over-invested and built your self confidence, understanding of the world, or your identity on something that is absurd, or impossible, or naive?
In a universe of complex causal density, where humans are subject to vast opportunities, have disparate interests, are able to make choices, an have every incentive to make choices in their interests, and because of this they have every reason to defect from any form of cooperation that is other than opportunistic, it is very easy for each of us to begin with a premise, or value judgement, or assumption (or a set of them) and justify a presumed good by asking people to conform to our ideas given some abstract end, rather than supplying ideas that take advantage of their opportunities, interests, and incentives at every choice along the way.
Every person thinks he or she has some particular ‘if only’ insight that will solve society’s problems, but that’s only because they have not modeled the conditions and individual choices with the presumption that people will choose whatever is in their interest ,not the idea’s interests, at all times.
Or put very simply: we must build normative and institutional methods of governing the humans we have, not the one’s we wish we had. And as far as I can see, throughout history, this means producing rules that do not interfere with seizure of opportunities for fulfillment but only suppress opportunities for doing so by means others will object to sufficiently to seek restitution or punishment.
Just because you can figure out an itinerary for getting to Rome, doesn’t have anything to do with whether the tourists will choose your route or another’s.
It takes a great deal of intellectual honesty to have such conversations. If you’re seeking confirmation it’s pointless. If you seek to test your ideas that’s something else.
In my experience almost no one at all is capable of doing so. It’s far less than one percent of people. Its probably in three positions right of the decimal.
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/32104853_10156344981017264_4843992364152258560_o_10156344981007264.jpg CURT, WHY DID YOU POST THIS?
—“I’m curious as to the reason you posted this. Volunaryists are the weakest of the AnCap betas.”—Richard Heathen
TO SEED A CONVERSATION ABOUT VIOLENCE.
—“of course in this is our defeat. Until we change this frame we will not survive against the east. We think there is a thing called “peace”. That when people are not actively being violent that means you r not at war, therefore at peace. War is politics by other means.
Everyone else sees politics as war by other means, and knows that war is the only state of being. Evolution: competition for limited resources.
War is the only thing that exists. There is war that is violent and war that isn’t violent but it is all war.”— Greg Hamilton
THERE WE GO. WE GOT THE ANSWER.
BUT WE ALSO GOT THIS REMINDER….
–” Does Scandinavia have to use violence to provide social goods? The same can be said of National Socialist Germany. Whites have a way of working together that does not end in misery and bloodshed.”—Tyler Karl Lia
^Why is it that a few very small countries on the edge of the world can do this?
(image old, but shard via Jake McCauley)John KunkelbrilliantMay 09, 2018 10:53pmConnor CreeganI like the dripping blood.May 09, 2018 10:59pmPatrick QuinlanLolberg meme circa 2012 thoMay 09, 2018 11:00pmJoseph RossIt should be noted that Jake thinks that child prostitution is a good thing. He didn’t make the case “what if the child consents?” He made the case “the child should consent.”May 09, 2018 11:02pmIgor RogovSomething is missing here. “Moral coherence” I would say.
Example: Australian aboriginals did not have a concept of private property as such back in 17th century. So when European settlers tried to establish caches of supply, aboriginals would happily take whatever they want – peacefully and without second thought.
Yet Europeans responded with violence.
Both sides were within their voluntarian “right”, yet as a whole they were totally incoherent.
Violence is inevitable in these situations (and I am not advocating for violence, but just stating it is an inevitable outcome).
To summarise – the voluntarists would use violence against peaceful people who are incoherent with their moral code, even if they don’t have any intention to do so. Voluntary relationships between two morally incoherent parties are not to mutual benefit while some benefit is desired by both parties.
Enforcement of moral coherence is absolutely inevitable.
Life would be generally peaceful if moral coherence is observed and nurtured in a local population, even if it is a cannibal population, peacefully eating other people.May 09, 2018 11:03pmTyler Karl LiaDoes Scandinavia have to use violence to provide social goods? The same can be said of National Socialist Germany. Whites have a way of working together that does not end in misery and bloodshed.May 09, 2018 11:09pmBill JoslinLet’s see… Negativa
Context:
Man in nature = man in society
State of nature = Violence
Man in a state of nature = interpersonal violence
In this light the metric changes from:
“I will use violence against innocent people for…”
To
“What application of violence produces innocent people”
Or ‘i will stay peaceful until X is threatened”May 09, 2018 11:13pmGreg Hamiltonof course in this is our defeat. Until we change this frame we will not survive against the east. We think there is a thing called “peace”. That when people are not actively being violent that means you r not at war, therefore at peace. War is politics by other means.
Everyone else sees politics as war by other means, and knows that war is the only state of being. Evolution: competition for limited resources.
War is the only thing that exists. There is war that is violent and war that isn’t violent but it is all war.May 09, 2018 11:13pmGreg Hamiltonspies, technology theft, buying politicians, hacking, disruption of markets, money manipulation, population displacement; all are acts of war. A truly moral people would kill everyone that does these things to them until they stop doing themMay 09, 2018 11:15pmGreg HamiltonI love the “I don’t advocate violence” statements. Why?May 09, 2018 11:19pmJorn Birx”I don’t condone violence.” he says, as his daughter is being gang-raped by immigrants. “If we fight back against those trying to kill us, they win.”May 09, 2018 11:24pmGeorge Anthony IIPeople who refuse to act violently will always be subjugated by those who are willing to use violence.May 09, 2018 11:42pmDarren O’ConnorCurt, you posted something gay by accident.May 09, 2018 11:44pmKaiser SchimdtWhat’s the next step after total socialism? That’s where I’m at.May 10, 2018 2:34amRyan McRothbard’s taintMay 10, 2018 6:13amGilberto CarlosIt’s only gay if you support it.May 10, 2018 6:26amCurt DoolittleExactly. lolMay 10, 2018 6:52amCurt Doolittlewell done.May 10, 2018 6:52amCurt DoolittleCorrect. Well done.May 10, 2018 6:53amCurt Doolittle—“in this is our defeat”—
THATS THE ANSWER I WAS LOOKING FORMay 10, 2018 6:53amCurt DoolittleYeah, read the comments. I got the responses I was looking for. ;)May 10, 2018 6:54amCurt DoolittleTotal Communism (Slavery)May 10, 2018 6:54amDarren O’ConnorOh, I know. Just throwing my own smartassery in :)May 10, 2018 7:02amEli HarmanThen total cannibalism. Don’t eat anything that ISN’T human.May 10, 2018 8:35amCURT, WHY DID YOU POST THIS?
—“I’m curious as to the reason you posted this. Volunaryists are the weakest of the AnCap betas.”—Richard Heathen
TO SEED A CONVERSATION ABOUT VIOLENCE.
—“of course in this is our defeat. Until we change this frame we will not survive against the east. We think there is a thing called “peace”. That when people are not actively being violent that means you r not at war, therefore at peace. War is politics by other means.
Everyone else sees politics as war by other means, and knows that war is the only state of being. Evolution: competition for limited resources.
War is the only thing that exists. There is war that is violent and war that isn’t violent but it is all war.”— Greg Hamilton
THERE WE GO. WE GOT THE ANSWER.
BUT WE ALSO GOT THIS REMINDER….
–” Does Scandinavia have to use violence to provide social goods? The same can be said of National Socialist Germany. Whites have a way of working together that does not end in misery and bloodshed.”—Tyler Karl Lia
^Why is it that a few very small countries on the edge of the world can do this?
How long have you been following me? Because if you don’t know when and why I use the imperative form, it cant be long.
I don’t have a name for your particular form of “disapproval by shaming” – as distinct from an appropriate argument against falsehood – but it is strangely a behavior as gender-specific as NAXALT.
I should name it.
Agency requires we can separate the preferable, from the good, from the true. And address each accordingly as a personal preference, shared preference, or truth independent of preference or good.
Whatever we call it, it’s one of the gender-specific cognitive biases that conflates preference, good, and truth, such that there is no distinction between the preferable, the presumption of knowledge of the good and the disregard for the true.
Using this form of disapproval means one lacks Agency. It means that one is not fully human, but still a mammal lacking reason, but able to speak – even if not sensibly.
I have read every significant work of economic theory ever written, (as well as most in mathematics, logic, philosophy, history, politics, the military and the arts).
As far as I know I’m one of the best philosophers working today. Really. And that’s not because I’m all that good, but that philosophy is in such a death spiral.
1) Marxism is a work of fiction for the ill mannered, not-very-bright and abysmally ignorant which is why they only teach it in non-STEM disciplines where the not-very-bright and ignorant can munch literary crayons while in the context of pseudo intellectual coloring books.
2) Subjective value is true and labor value is false. This cannot be otherwise. Sorry. There is zero evidence to the contrary.
3) Value is created by organizing production not performing production. Labor is the least valuable part of the cycle with the lowest return on time per hour.
4) Property, Money, Prices, Interest, Contract are necessary for the organization of production in a kaleidic universe.
5) Prices and prices for our time in particular, are necessary for both decidability and for incentives.
6) The incentives necessary to motivate the semi-domesticated animals and the cost of training them to function whatsoever are far higher than motivating the domesticated humans and the cost of training them is far lower than their underclass peers.
7) People were raised out of ignorance and poverty by consumer capitalism and the primary beneficiaries are those at the bottom.
8) People (underclasses) are not oppressed, but incrementally domesticated, because they’re largely only partly domesticated animals, and our prosperity is dependent upon increasing the humans and decreasing the semi-domesticated human animals, for the simple reason that people are only 20% more productive than they can consume and therefore every person at the bottom consumes the entire productivity of five to six people at the top.
9) If you cannot compete in today’s market it is because you are too ill mannered, ill cultured, poorly raised, with an undesirable personality and stupid to provide any value to your fellow man other than staying out of the way and causing as little harm, damage, and parasitism as possible.
—“Just go read Das Capital”— Young Female Marxist
I have read every significant work of economic theory ever written, (as well as most in mathematics, logic, philosophy, history, politics, the military and the arts).
As far as I know I’m one of the best philosophers working today. Really. And that’s not because I’m all that good, but that philosophy is in such a death spiral.
1) Marxism is a work of fiction for the ill mannered, not-very-bright and abysmally ignorant which is why they only teach it in non-STEM disciplines where the not-very-bright and ignorant can munch literary crayons while in the context of pseudo intellectual coloring books.
2) Subjective value is true and labor value is false. This cannot be otherwise. Sorry. There is zero evidence to the contrary.
3) Value is created by organizing production not performing production. Labor is the least valuable part of the cycle with the lowest return on time per hour.
4) Property, Money, Prices, Interest, Contract are necessary for the organization of production in a kaleidic universe.
5) Prices and prices for our time in particular, are necessary for both decidability and for incentives.
6) The incentives necessary to motivate the semi-domesticated animals and the cost of training them to function whatsoever are far higher than motivating the domesticated humans and the cost of training them is far lower than their underclass peers.
7) People were raised out of ignorance and poverty by consumer capitalism and the primary beneficiaries are those at the bottom.
8) People (underclasses) are not oppressed, but incrementally domesticated, because they’re largely only partly domesticated animals, and our prosperity is dependent upon increasing the humans and decreasing the semi-domesticated human animals, for the simple reason that people are only 20% more productive than they can consume and therefore every person at the bottom consumes the entire productivity of five to six people at the top.
9) If you cannot compete in today’s market it is because you are too ill mannered, ill cultured, poorly raised, with an undesirable personality and stupid to provide any value to your fellow man other than staying out of the way and causing as little harm, damage, and parasitism as possible.
Thanks.
—“Just go read Das Capital”— Young Female Marxist
I have read every significant work of economic theory ever written, (as well as most in mathematics, logic, philosophy, history, politics, the military and the arts).
As far as I know I’m one of the best philosophers working today. Really. And that’s not because I’m all that good, but that philosophy is in such a death spiral.
1) Marxism is a work of fiction for the ill mannered, not-very-bright and abysmally ignorant which is why they only teach it in non-STEM disciplines where the not-very-bright and ignorant can munch literary crayons while in the context of pseudo intellectual coloring books.
2) Subjective value is true and labor value is false. This cannot be otherwise. Sorry. There is zero evidence to the contrary.
3) Value is created by organizing production not performing production. Labor is the least valuable part of the cycle with the lowest return on time per hour.
4) Property, Money, Prices, Interest, Contract are necessary for the organization of production in a kaleidic universe.
5) Prices and prices for our time in particular, are necessary for both decidability and for incentives.
6) The incentives necessary to motivate the semi-domesticated animals and the cost of training them to function whatsoever are far higher than motivating the domesticated humans and the cost of training them is far lower than their underclass peers.
7) People were raised out of ignorance and poverty by consumer capitalism and the primary beneficiaries are those at the bottom.
8) People (underclasses) are not oppressed, but incrementally domesticated, because they’re largely only partly domesticated animals, and our prosperity is dependent upon increasing the humans and decreasing the semi-domesticated human animals, for the simple reason that people are only 20% more productive than they can consume and therefore every person at the bottom consumes the entire productivity of five to six people at the top.
9) If you cannot compete in today’s market it is because you are too ill mannered, ill cultured, poorly raised, with an undesirable personality and stupid to provide any value to your fellow man other than staying out of the way and causing as little harm, damage, and parasitism as possible.
Thanks.
