“in-group vs out-group to morality?” https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/in-group-vs-out-group-to-morality/
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 20:28:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179855858139832320
“in-group vs out-group to morality?” https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/in-group-vs-out-group-to-morality/
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 20:28:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179855858139832320
—“Can you relate in-group vs out-group to morality = reciprocity ?”—Scott Claremont
Morality = Rules of cooperation INGROUP VS OUTGROUP 1. Ingroup, 2. outgroup … a. outgroup trade, … b. outgroup boycott, … c. outgroup competitor, … d. outgroup parasite … e. outgroup predator Ingroup by definition = cooperation (moral) Ingroup always requires reciprocity. Ingroup oten requires investment (risk) Ingroup often requires insurance Ingroup may require subsidy. Outgroup by definition only requires utility. Outgroup may or may not require reciprocity Outgroup does not require investment (risk) Outgroup does not demand insurance Outgroup does not require subsidy. Outgroup non-cooperation is disutilitarian Outgroup non-cooperation does not require reciprocity Outgroup non-cooperation does not require investment Outgroup non-cooperation does not require insurance Outgroup non-cooperation does not require subsidy Outgroup enemy is harmful Outgroup enemy requires irreciprocity Outgroup enemy requires costs to impose costs Outgroup enemy requires destruction of their insurance Outgroup enemy requires destruction of their subsidies Lesson: you can’t use one rule for scale. Humans are monkeys that want to imitate or follow a single pre-cognitive intuitions rather than think (remember or reason). But spectra require disambiguation and thought. There are no points(ideal types) only lines (spectra).
—“Can you relate in-group vs out-group to morality = reciprocity ?”—Scott Claremont
Morality = Rules of cooperation INGROUP VS OUTGROUP 1. Ingroup, 2. outgroup … a. outgroup trade, … b. outgroup boycott, … c. outgroup competitor, … d. outgroup parasite … e. outgroup predator Ingroup by definition = cooperation (moral) Ingroup always requires reciprocity. Ingroup oten requires investment (risk) Ingroup often requires insurance Ingroup may require subsidy. Outgroup by definition only requires utility. Outgroup may or may not require reciprocity Outgroup does not require investment (risk) Outgroup does not demand insurance Outgroup does not require subsidy. Outgroup non-cooperation is disutilitarian Outgroup non-cooperation does not require reciprocity Outgroup non-cooperation does not require investment Outgroup non-cooperation does not require insurance Outgroup non-cooperation does not require subsidy Outgroup enemy is harmful Outgroup enemy requires irreciprocity Outgroup enemy requires costs to impose costs Outgroup enemy requires destruction of their insurance Outgroup enemy requires destruction of their subsidies Lesson: you can’t use one rule for scale. Humans are monkeys that want to imitate or follow a single pre-cognitive intuitions rather than think (remember or reason). But spectra require disambiguation and thought. There are no points(ideal types) only lines (spectra).
DO WE NEED TO BE UNITED AROUND VIA-POSITIVAS (“SHOULD DO”)? AND SHOULD IT BE “ALL ABOUT RACE?”by John Mark September 26 at 10:39 AM (Answer to a couple of good questions.) [R]eciprocity is a via-negativa law (“you can’t do xyz”), not a via-positiva (“we must/should do abc”) though it can be expressed as a via-positiva (“we need to enforce reciprocity”). On the grassroots Right we all can agree on enforcing reciprocity. And yes the 10 commandments are expressions of property rights/reciprocity & again they’re mostly via-negativa (“don’t do”). And yes the brainwashing of our people is a factor for sure, but the simple concept of reciprocity cuts through a lot of that too. The via-positiva is where factions come in (e.g. Christians want to say “everyone should be a Christian” while non-christians say “no I don’t believe that”). The different via positivas are not a problem as long as we all agree on reciprocity. E.g. the Christians can go to church on Sunday & the non-christians can stay home, or a leader could be a Christian or not a Christian, and everything’s fine as long as nobody’s violating reciprocity. Agreeing on and enforcing reciprocity stops the via-positivas from hurting each other. On race, reciprocity also cuts through and clarifies that issue. It’s not “all about” race but at the same time race is a big factor in what is happening in the West. The simple fact is, 70% of nonwhites (men, women, all demographics of nonwhites) in America vote left (ir-reciprocity) and buy into the anti-white, anti-West narrative. Also, 30-40% of whites (largely single childless women) vote Left (ir-reciprocity). The only demographic that votes majority Right is white men and their wives. So the policy conclusions that we must implement out of practicality (not ill-will or “hate”) are (we have no choice):
This along with self-sorting after a separation would leave about 80% white & 20% nonwhite (mostly right-wing nonwhites) in red areas, which may be workable as long as there is no more nonwhite immigration. And the law/political system in red areas would be very robust with the combination of these demographic changes (masses of leftist nonwhites & leftist whites in big blue coastal cities no longer affecting our politics), limits on voting, and Propertarianism’s other law/policy/system recommendations. So race is a big issue statistically (in terms of group avg characteristics, attitudes, instincts & voting patterns), but at the same time it’s not “all about race”. We have to talk about race accurately and statistically and scientifically because this is part of the brainwashing the grassroots Right must abandon (the leftist lie that all people groups/races are or can be identical interchangeable widgets – as groups). And we Propertarians are in a great “sweet spot” to do that because we present a “let’s be accurate” and slightly academic vibe and we do not present an “ill-will/hate” vibe (while still being “muscular” – “we’re going to do what it takes to enforce reciprocity”).
DO WE NEED TO BE UNITED AROUND VIA-POSITIVAS (“SHOULD DO”)? AND SHOULD IT BE “ALL ABOUT RACE?”by John Mark September 26 at 10:39 AM (Answer to a couple of good questions.) [R]eciprocity is a via-negativa law (“you can’t do xyz”), not a via-positiva (“we must/should do abc”) though it can be expressed as a via-positiva (“we need to enforce reciprocity”). On the grassroots Right we all can agree on enforcing reciprocity. And yes the 10 commandments are expressions of property rights/reciprocity & again they’re mostly via-negativa (“don’t do”). And yes the brainwashing of our people is a factor for sure, but the simple concept of reciprocity cuts through a lot of that too. The via-positiva is where factions come in (e.g. Christians want to say “everyone should be a Christian” while non-christians say “no I don’t believe that”). The different via positivas are not a problem as long as we all agree on reciprocity. E.g. the Christians can go to church on Sunday & the non-christians can stay home, or a leader could be a Christian or not a Christian, and everything’s fine as long as nobody’s violating reciprocity. Agreeing on and enforcing reciprocity stops the via-positivas from hurting each other. On race, reciprocity also cuts through and clarifies that issue. It’s not “all about” race but at the same time race is a big factor in what is happening in the West. The simple fact is, 70% of nonwhites (men, women, all demographics of nonwhites) in America vote left (ir-reciprocity) and buy into the anti-white, anti-West narrative. Also, 30-40% of whites (largely single childless women) vote Left (ir-reciprocity). The only demographic that votes majority Right is white men and their wives. So the policy conclusions that we must implement out of practicality (not ill-will or “hate”) are (we have no choice):
This along with self-sorting after a separation would leave about 80% white & 20% nonwhite (mostly right-wing nonwhites) in red areas, which may be workable as long as there is no more nonwhite immigration. And the law/political system in red areas would be very robust with the combination of these demographic changes (masses of leftist nonwhites & leftist whites in big blue coastal cities no longer affecting our politics), limits on voting, and Propertarianism’s other law/policy/system recommendations. So race is a big issue statistically (in terms of group avg characteristics, attitudes, instincts & voting patterns), but at the same time it’s not “all about race”. We have to talk about race accurately and statistically and scientifically because this is part of the brainwashing the grassroots Right must abandon (the leftist lie that all people groups/races are or can be identical interchangeable widgets – as groups). And we Propertarians are in a great “sweet spot” to do that because we present a “let’s be accurate” and slightly academic vibe and we do not present an “ill-will/hate” vibe (while still being “muscular” – “we’re going to do what it takes to enforce reciprocity”).
YES, NORMS ARE COMMON PROPERTY by Martin Stepan
—“So if such a thing as via-positiva norms do exist, is it possible for there to be violations of reciprocity by not adhering to said via positive norms? Or would this just be considered to be a violation of someone’s notion of the “the good”, and therefore intangible property if they show a willingness to defend it?”—Michael Bernard
[A]s long as those norms remain someone’s demonstrated interest, you can violate reciprocity by subverting them. You can always go live somewhere else where they’ll have you, and norms will be more to your liking.
YES, NORMS ARE COMMON PROPERTY by Martin Stepan
—“So if such a thing as via-positiva norms do exist, is it possible for there to be violations of reciprocity by not adhering to said via positive norms? Or would this just be considered to be a violation of someone’s notion of the “the good”, and therefore intangible property if they show a willingness to defend it?”—Michael Bernard
[A]s long as those norms remain someone’s demonstrated interest, you can violate reciprocity by subverting them. You can always go live somewhere else where they’ll have you, and norms will be more to your liking.
Sovereigntarianism Requires Reciprocal Insurance: Love. https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/sovereigntarianism-requires-reciprocal-insurance-love/
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 20:05:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179850063255949313
—“There is a lot of brotherly love and care for each other over here. That’s a very noble thing in a world of radical individualism.”– Noah J Revoy
[W]e talk about rule of law, but that’s our defense against the dysgenic, parasitic, envious, leftist evil. We mention sovereignty, which is the objective. We rarely mention reciprocal insurance of that sovereignty of all men by all other men. And we never mention that reciprocal insurance creates a brotherhood of men – which is the civil society we all desire.
—“There is a lot of brotherly love and care for each other over here. That’s a very noble thing in a world of radical individualism.”– Noah J Revoy
[W]e talk about rule of law, but that’s our defense against the dysgenic, parasitic, envious, leftist evil. We mention sovereignty, which is the objective. We rarely mention reciprocal insurance of that sovereignty of all men by all other men. And we never mention that reciprocal insurance creates a brotherhood of men – which is the civil society we all desire.