LOOK HOW EXPENSIVE DEFLATION IS AND HOW CHEAP CONFLATION IS
Lies are cheaper than truth.
Look how much work we have to do to deflate statements into terms and series and operational sequences to refute a lie-by-conflation-and-fictionalism.
It’s costly. That’s why we have to punish the hell out of people for it, so that we reduce universal transaction and opportunity costs.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-12 12:11:00 UTC
***We are all what we choose to be within the limits of what we can be. The question is not what we are but what we choose to be.***
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-12 12:07:00 UTC
THE TRUTH IS SIMPLE AND THE CHOICE CLEAR
That truth is quite simple: we will either, as a permanent minority of moral men, use organized violence to obtain a condition of sovereignty in fact, or we will have neither sovereignty, liberty, or freedom. But expansion of serfdom and slavery in all its forms: pseudo-scientific, pseudo-rational, supernatural deceit-slavery, financial debt slavery, legislative slavery, and redistributive slavery.
ALl that is required is that we fight, and profit from fighting.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-12 10:48:00 UTC
—“There are some choices it’s not worth letting you make. “– Ely Harman
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-12 07:43:00 UTC
Every libertarian wants to say ‘its my body, and I choose’ like a woman does. Except that unlike a woman he doesn’t have a vagina, and lacks her intrinsic value. Ergo, extra males are dead weight.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-11 17:41:00 UTC
I kind of think Aristocratic Liberty requires (a) scientific thought AND (b) taking responsibility for the tribe.
Whereas much Separatist libertinism uses (c) rational thought and (d) avoids responsibility for the tribe (absence of loyalty).
You could just say in-group males and out-group males.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-11 13:22:00 UTC
(IOW: If bonobo’s didn’t exist we wouldn’t believe they were possible)
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-11 09:41:00 UTC
“Pascal’s wager in personal choice, Occam’s razor in scientific investigation, Dollar Cost Averaging in investment, Bayesian choice in computer science, and the law of the excluded middle in logic and mathematics all recommend precisely the same principle: When we are absent sufficient information or sufficient time, or sufficient resources, pragmatic decisions are still possible.”
-Curt Doolittle
Brett Sterling just posted this. And when I re-read it, it made me realize, that I’d forgotten to finish the explanation why.
By choosing (purchasing) the lowest cost option we do not maximize gains or success or precision, but we minimize losses or failures, or under-over estimation.
Why? Because the universe is cheap. It hasn’t the choice to take an option on higher, later, rewards to conserve energy. It conserves energy by taking the lowest cost solution that causes persistence.
Why is this important? Because philosophy (morality, personal choice) pursues the good, and the optimum, but generally ignores costs.
Adding costs to philosophy is analogous to removing immortality from the gods of our myths.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-11 08:04:00 UTC
Testimonialism is equivalent to the copernican, empirical, and darwinian revolutions in the sense that it provides an answer that we don’t want to hear, even if it will be profoundly valuable for us to have heard.
I can see very clearly (despite my own extreme difficulty with it) how a future looks after Testimonialism, just as we can see before and after the greeks, before and after the enlightenment, before and after darwin.
Many things we hold dear are simply imprecise, false, or outright lies.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 11:03:00 UTC
DEMOCRACY IS A MEANS OF SELECTING PRIORITIES AMONG PEOPLES WITH SIMILAR INTERESTS. MARKETS ARE A MEANS OF COOPERATING ACROSS DISSIMILAR INTERESTS.
(And monopoly majority rule is a means of destroying cooperation between dissimilar interests.)
by Shanaynay Tomson
If voting is used at all it should be a limited to a tool used among peers within political houses that represent the classes to make decisions among themselves and come up with proposals and requests made to the ruling aristocracy who also use voting as a limited tool among themselves as peers.
All attempts to use voting among groups of non-peers with varied and conflicting interests (separate polities existing under a larger umbrella polity [the state]) can be defined as Chaos and have always proven to be such.
Though useful among groups of peers that are equals, it is a tool of only limited and specific value and should always be used as such, it is otherwise dangerous. de Tocqueville saw this in his exploration of US democracy in the early 19th century, a number of the US founders were aware of this as well, but failed to create an operational system that limited the dangers inherent to this tool of very limited use.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 08:18:00 UTC