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… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=473689256561303&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-27 15:51:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177611654160375811
Don’t confuse applied technology with the technology that makes it possible: Ethnocentrism, Homogeneity Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Testimonial (Empirical) Truth, Rule of Law and the Jury, Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, and Markets (meritocracy) in every aspect of life.
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-27 14:20:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177588884064083968
Reply addressees: @wil_da_beast630 @FernandoLeanme
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177581514994913281
IN REPLY TO:
@wil_da_beast630
@FernandoLeanme @curtdoolittle To me, the obvious fact is that – whether or not slight Caucasian advantages played some role at the out-set – culture can quite easily diffuse across racial populations. This was true for Chines gunpowder and desk-sit schooling, and is true now. Japan is a Western country, f/e.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177581514994913281
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
As 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.
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-27 11:51:00 UTC
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07XXDVVKFKEVIN MACDONALD ON RECIPROCITY (IMPORTANT)
(He got there!!!!)
CHAPTER 2
SECTION: *Reciprocity as a Trait of I-E Culture.*
—“The aristocratic individualism of the PI-Es was based on reciprocity, not despotism or kinship ties. For example, at the heart of PI-E culture was the practice of gift—giving as a reward for military accomplishment. Successful leaders were expected to reward their followers handsomely.
[79] Oath-bound contracts of reciprocal relationships were characteristic of PI-Es and this practice continued with the various I-E groups that invaded Europe. These contracts formed the basis of patron-client relationships based on reputation—leaders could expect loyal service from their followers, and followers could expect equitable rewards for their service to the leader.
This is critical because these relationships are based on talent and accomplishment, not ethnicity (i.e., rewarding people on the basis of closeness of kinship) or despotic subservience (where followers are essentially unfree). Oath-bound contracts were not only typical of the aristocratic individualism of the Mannerbunde: they extended to relationships of domination and subordination between military elites and conquered peoples, providing protection in return for service. In conjunction with the previous points, this is a prescription for feudal-type societies dominated by military elites with mutual obligations to the people they dominate, but in which kinship ties between elites and the people they dominate are relatively unimportant.
Breaking Down Bonds of Kinship. PI-E society developed institutions that tended to break down strong kinship bonds. David Anthony, e.g., writes that Yamnaya cultural practices related to guest-host relationships led in a direction away from kinship toward reciprocity. These reciprocal guest-host relationships “functioned as a bridge between social units (tribes, clans) that had ordinarily restricted these relationships to their kin or co-residents.”[7—1] There were thus mechanisms to provide guest- host relationships beyond kinship where everyone had mutual obligations of hospitality; in a comment illustrating the pervasiveness and longevity of these practices, Anthony notes that this was a “way to incorporate outsiders as people with clearly defined rights and protections, as it was used in the Odyssey to medieval Europe”[72-]— another indication of the persistence of I-E culture over very long periods of historical time.
The Rewards of Military Success. Besides the tangible rewards for success, successful warriors were honored in poetry. Successful leaders not only gave feasts and gifts to their followers, they were celebrated in poetry—their memory lived on long after their death. Odes proclaiming the generosity of patrons were very characteristic of widely dispersed I-E cultures (Vedic, Celtic, Greek, and Germanic), indicating an origin in late Proto-Indo-European.[7-3] As Duchesne emphasizes, at a conscious level, I-E warfare was conducted principally to gain fame and glory—“The fame of a dead man’s deeds.”[7—4] Nevertheless, to the victors remained the very tangible spoils resulting from successful military campaigns.
Indo-Europeanism as a Free-Market, Individualist Culture. For my purposes, it is especially important to note that the military cultures created by the I-Es were permeable—that they were based on individual accomplishment rather than kinship ties. Indeed, I-E societies recognized that kinship biases people’s perceptions and judgments.
[ … ]
As noted, military leaders maintained their position by military success and by bestowing gifts upon their followers, with the most talented followers obtaining the greatest gifts. A corollary of this is that followers chose successful leaders and abandoned unsuccessful leaders. The system functioned more or less as a free-market system based on merit rather than nepotism. As in all free-market systems, the fundamental principle is reciprocity, whether it is giving gifts commensurate with contribution to the exploits of the Mc’innerbund, or, in the modern world, paying employees a wage commensurate with the value they add to the company on pain of defection to another company. And just as companies compete to obtain talented employees in the modern world, I-E military leaders competed to attract a following of talented warriors.
Reciprocity thus lies at the heart of societies
based on individualism.”—
FROM:
Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07XXDVVKFUpdated Sep 26, 2019, 4:56 PM
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-26 16:54:00 UTC
THERE IS ONLY ONE EXISTENTIALLY POSSIBLE SYSTEM OF LIBERTARIANISM AND IT IS EUROPEAN RULE OF LAW OF RECIPROCITY
(updated)
Libertarianism in the Western sense is just rule of law. The difference between libertarians (jewish vs european) has been the scope of tort (trespass) that the law must provide resolution of disputes over.
Rothbardians use intersubjectively verifiable property (material things), and I (following Hayek and Ostrom) include everything at all in which people demonstrate and investment interest (demonstrated interest) over which disputes must be settled.
The law must satisfy the market for dispute resolution, and the scope of property is determined by the market for dispute resolution. And reciprocity is always and everywhere decidable under all circumstances under which there is human conflict – because it is purely scientific purely logical, and of evolutionary necessity.
Rothbardianism is just marxism(denial) of the commons instead of marxism(denial) of private property. In other words I use the empirical definition of property (that which people desire we insure) not an arbitrary one (that which is materially scarce).
This jewish(monopoly, authoritarian) vs european(markets) conflict is consistent across every branch of thought, including the so called Austrian economics of Menger (european) and Mises (jewish) in which Menger merely applied calculus to markets, but mises tried to invent a version of Pilpul (a sophism) in praxeology, when all he had discovered (without knowing it, probably because the insight was not his own) operational falsification in economics.
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-26 13:26:00 UTC
what does a majority have to do with determination of morality? nothing.
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-26 09:06:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177147456175398912
Reply addressees: @Gyeff
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177055148985790465
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
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.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177055148985790465
RECIPROCITY CUTS BOTH WAYS
—“Employers need to grant you off for religious holidays if they think their beliefs are sincere and genuine. So what happens if an employer doubts your religiosity when asking off Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, because you, for instance, don’t keep kosher?”–Ashley Rae Goldenberg @Communism_Kills
Nope. If you want to burn personal time instead of working, please do but don’t ask employers to pay for your choice, or the loss of the work you should be providing. We can all think of excuses why we’re special. Sincerity isn’t testable, and isn’t meaningful.
·
—“This is about religious holidays dude. Not everyone is Christian so not everyone gets their religious holidays off. It seems like you missed that.”—Ashley Rae Goldenberg
@Communism_Kills
I didn’t miss anything. The only Christian holiday is Christmas, and even then, only because it is so familially and commercially influential. All other holidays are secular. If we restored Christian holidays we’d have at least 35.
There are no exclusively religious work holidays.
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-26 07:06:00 UTC
WHY DOES RECIPROCITY MAKE LIBERTARIANS BUTTHURT?
—“I shared some Curt Doolittle posts about reciprocity and libertarians got extremely butthurt. Why is that? When I started talking about the cultivation of self, of yourself as a man, my “friends” from secret groups started trying to get me to denounce what I said and repent in public. Sjw-like behavior. But why?””—Christopher M Matthews
Because rothbardian libertarianism is an SJW-targeted system of thought, argued with SJW logic, producing another Abrahamic cult of sophism. There is only one source of sovereignty, liberty, and freedom, and that is the natural law of reciprocity, insured by all able bodied men bearing arms. There is nothing more to be said.
Libertarians won’t pay for the commons, because like those whose immoral ethics and sophomoric reasoning they imitate, they want to parasitically free ride upon the payment for commons by others, just as if they were wandering sheepherders or hunter gatherers with no necessity or responsibility of land holding.
They don’t somehow grasp, despite some economic understanding, that one must produce sufficient commons to defend against the strongest opponent in the market for territory, polity, and order of their preference.
So, those that produce greater commons in one way or another (whether predatory, parasitic, or productive) defeat those that do not produce commons sufficient to compete with them.
Ergo, the market demands at least sufficient funding of commons to preserve sovereignty, liberty, and freedom, and it turns out that holding territory sufficient to create a condition of sovereignty is expensive.
That is why all those who’ve failed are gone. It’s why there are at present something like 500 dead gods – the tombstones of peoples who failed.
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-26 06:29:00 UTC
–“It is common for people to confuse the good (productive) with the moral (reciprocal).”– Curt Doolittle
–“It is common for people to confuse the good (productive) with the moral (reciprocal).”– Curt Doolittle
