That’s the easy one. Try the hard one: How do we know a lender isn’t baiting a borrower into hazard? How can a lender warranty his liability against baiting into hazard?
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 20:53:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253789299172089857
Reply addressees: @judicialist @ComicDaveSmith
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253787088857817090
The Lies https://propertarianism.com/2020/04/24/the-lies/
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 18:40:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253755776654598152
[T]he Lies: “I reject, I disapprove, I disagree, I’m wary, I don’t believe, or engaging in ridicule, shaming, moralizing or psychologizing.” None of these are a form of reciprocity: an argument – they’re counter-signaling in lieu of argument. And lacking argument because of one’s ignorance or incompetence. And cowardice in admission of one’s ignorance or incompetence. An intellectually honest man does not counter signal like a woman, but either seeks to understand by asking questions, or posits a counter proposition that is open to equal criticism. counter signaling is a violation of reciprocity – a pretense of knowledge when one has none. You have only THREE intellectually honest propositions: … 1. Refutation. … 2. Competition. … 3. Question. Or the female (dishonest) … 4. Disapproval by counter signaling One cannot disapprove of a truth only a preference. The female cannot use force, or necessarily physically cooperate, or even use organized force or competition, but she can deprive men of sex, affection, care, and advocacy, and engage in counter signaling, or undermining, and rally other women to counter signal, and undermine. That is their weapon of competition of necessity. It is the means by which the females CREATE MARKET DEMAND for men to SATISFY THEM in exchange for sex, affection, care, advocacy and perhaps most importantly, abstinence from undermining you and those you cooperate with. This is why, if not one family one vote, then men and women require different houses, and both the legal prohibition on male violence, as well as the legal prohibition on female avoidance of argument, undermining, and reputation destruction so that both genders are reduced as are all others in the marketplace to cooperation by voluntary exchanges. Which was the point of marriage and one family one vote – and one of the principle means by which women’s natural irreciprocity and social superpredation was let loose from the pandora’s box of enfranchisement without equal legal suppression of the female means of superpredation that we had evolved in legal suppression of the man’s means of superpredation. We are not consious of the causes of our behavior. Which is what I seek to cure. And which will restore us to reciprocity. And end the conflict. And force us back into markets. -Cheers
[T]he Lies: “I reject, I disapprove, I disagree, I’m wary, I don’t believe, or engaging in ridicule, shaming, moralizing or psychologizing.” None of these are a form of reciprocity: an argument – they’re counter-signaling in lieu of argument. And lacking argument because of one’s ignorance or incompetence. And cowardice in admission of one’s ignorance or incompetence. An intellectually honest man does not counter signal like a woman, but either seeks to understand by asking questions, or posits a counter proposition that is open to equal criticism. counter signaling is a violation of reciprocity – a pretense of knowledge when one has none. You have only THREE intellectually honest propositions: … 1. Refutation. … 2. Competition. … 3. Question. Or the female (dishonest) … 4. Disapproval by counter signaling One cannot disapprove of a truth only a preference. The female cannot use force, or necessarily physically cooperate, or even use organized force or competition, but she can deprive men of sex, affection, care, and advocacy, and engage in counter signaling, or undermining, and rally other women to counter signal, and undermine. That is their weapon of competition of necessity. It is the means by which the females CREATE MARKET DEMAND for men to SATISFY THEM in exchange for sex, affection, care, advocacy and perhaps most importantly, abstinence from undermining you and those you cooperate with. This is why, if not one family one vote, then men and women require different houses, and both the legal prohibition on male violence, as well as the legal prohibition on female avoidance of argument, undermining, and reputation destruction so that both genders are reduced as are all others in the marketplace to cooperation by voluntary exchanges. Which was the point of marriage and one family one vote – and one of the principle means by which women’s natural irreciprocity and social superpredation was let loose from the pandora’s box of enfranchisement without equal legal suppression of the female means of superpredation that we had evolved in legal suppression of the man’s means of superpredation. We are not consious of the causes of our behavior. Which is what I seek to cure. And which will restore us to reciprocity. And end the conflict. And force us back into markets. -Cheers
The P Program and Our Purposes https://propertarianism.com/2020/04/24/the-p-program-and-our-purposes-2/
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 18:22:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253751265345101824
[B]ill Joslin has always been as interested in the application of P to personal philosophy, as I have been interested in religion (mindfulness), politics, and law. This division of labor has helped expand our collective reach – and bill’s role as “the Professor” led to the production of our best people. Likewise, Luke Weinhagen is exploring another avenue, and we have had people spin off into all sorts of other interests -although it’s humorous at how deterministic their attempts to alternative personal and political agendas have been. P is a METHOD. That method completes the spectrum of the sciences because P is to sentient sciences as Math is to Physical sciences: the means of calculation, of constant relations from which we can produce subsequent deduction, inference, abduction, and creativity. Using human logical facility, mathematics, and P we we can articulate the social order that’s least divergent from physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. The least divergent from physical, natural and evolutionary laws, the more advantage we have in maintaining the optimum quality of life as we continue to calculate by market discovery using continuous trial and error, the means of maintaining our advantage, in our race with the red queen and her evolutionary competition in this brief period of geological and astronomical peace. The P-Constitution is constructed by the application of that method, because a universal militia, using sovereignty, reciprocity, rule of law by the common law of tort, and the markets in everything that result, and the production of commons from the surpluses, that was incrementally discovered by accident by our ancestors is the optimum human social order for continuous calculation. Although it comes at a price: increasing demand for mindfulness, increasing demand for intolerance, increasing responsibility for commons, and the suppression of those who cannot maintain cadence with our evolution by success in those markets. We have to know the reasons for western success in the ancient and modern worlds. Knowing them, we have to use them to defeat the second abrahamic attack on our civilization, and renew our resistance to eastern tyranny, as well as our own vulnerability because of our tolerance. And we have to restore our institutions so that we continue our transcendence into the gods we imagine – and be mindful, fit, and prosperous during our ascent.
[B]ill Joslin has always been as interested in the application of P to personal philosophy, as I have been interested in religion (mindfulness), politics, and law. This division of labor has helped expand our collective reach – and bill’s role as “the Professor” led to the production of our best people. Likewise, Luke Weinhagen is exploring another avenue, and we have had people spin off into all sorts of other interests -although it’s humorous at how deterministic their attempts to alternative personal and political agendas have been. P is a METHOD. That method completes the spectrum of the sciences because P is to sentient sciences as Math is to Physical sciences: the means of calculation, of constant relations from which we can produce subsequent deduction, inference, abduction, and creativity. Using human logical facility, mathematics, and P we we can articulate the social order that’s least divergent from physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. The least divergent from physical, natural and evolutionary laws, the more advantage we have in maintaining the optimum quality of life as we continue to calculate by market discovery using continuous trial and error, the means of maintaining our advantage, in our race with the red queen and her evolutionary competition in this brief period of geological and astronomical peace. The P-Constitution is constructed by the application of that method, because a universal militia, using sovereignty, reciprocity, rule of law by the common law of tort, and the markets in everything that result, and the production of commons from the surpluses, that was incrementally discovered by accident by our ancestors is the optimum human social order for continuous calculation. Although it comes at a price: increasing demand for mindfulness, increasing demand for intolerance, increasing responsibility for commons, and the suppression of those who cannot maintain cadence with our evolution by success in those markets. We have to know the reasons for western success in the ancient and modern worlds. Knowing them, we have to use them to defeat the second abrahamic attack on our civilization, and renew our resistance to eastern tyranny, as well as our own vulnerability because of our tolerance. And we have to restore our institutions so that we continue our transcendence into the gods we imagine – and be mindful, fit, and prosperous during our ascent.
I can teach a smart person the foundations rather quickly. Practicing them is like math or programming. you just have to do it.
We have an inside joke: that P makes a career path for aspies. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 17:19:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253735446280101888
Reply addressees: @unfinis06265716
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253715712696152065
RT @ThruTheHayes: Reciprocity, property in toto, compatibilism, and tri-functionalism; these continue reciprocity at increasing scales.
-@c…
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 17:18:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253735026145013760
RT @ThruTheHayes: Harsh Truth of the Militia:
He who can defend a thing, owns a thing.
He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing.
-@curt…
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 17:17:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253734946528800768