(Is there anything better in the world than a dev lead who is smarter than you are? I don’t think so. It’s just like a lawyer, accountant, or doctor. Same. It’s awesome.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-08 08:59:00 UTC
(Is there anything better in the world than a dev lead who is smarter than you are? I don’t think so. It’s just like a lawyer, accountant, or doctor. Same. It’s awesome.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-08 08:59:00 UTC
THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE NORTH SEA AND THE LEVANT.
Action vs verbalism
Operations vs meaning
Testimony vs Platonism
Recipe vs allegory
Promise vs convenience
Warranty vs irresponsibility
Innovation vs criticism
Landholding vs migrants
Commons vs parasitism
Honest Debate vs loaded gossip
Warriors vs priests
Liberty vs authority
Public truth vs private pragmatism.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-06 05:02:00 UTC
The reason I frame propertarianism as philosophy, despite that it is a social science (system of measurement) is to kill the ability to use philosophy to lie. End postmodern pseudoscience.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-01 03:36:00 UTC
LIBERTY IN MODERNITY ISN’T FOR SIMPLETONS
(reposted)
People who live in tents, ride animals, and shepherd other animals, talk about beliefs. People with fixed capital, who live in castles talk about laws. There is a reason for that.
When you ask people to value something that’s an informal institution we call belief.
When you tell people that property is a rule that you cannot violate, that’s a formal institution we call law.
The first is religion. The second is government.
Is your brand of liberty for goatherds living in tents (religion) that requires belief, or for engineers, builders and craftsmen, (government) that requires laws?
People who live in tents have very simple property. They need very simple laws.
Liberty in modernity isn’t for simpletons.
Try not to think like one.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-28 07:29:00 UTC
NEO-REACTION IS A CRITICISM – PROPERTARIANISM IS A SOLUTION
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-28 05:59:00 UTC
CENTRALIZE RENTS THEN EXTERMINATE THEM
Economic Rents create lost opportunities for exchange by granting a privilege that is incalculable instead of a return to the polity that is calculable (measurable). Majority rule creates lost opportunities to exchange rents and privileges which are incalculable, for returns to the polity that are calculable (measurable). Pooling of taxes rather than fees for services, the payments of debts, and returns on investments, create opportunities for rents. It is this system of rents that we systemically MUST construct under democracy. It is this system of rents, when replaced with requirement for operational calculability (operationalism) that allows the predatory and parasitic rent-seeking bureaucracy to exist. Conversely, with a universal requirement for operational calculability, universal standing for the prosecution of rent seeking, and the negotiation of contracts, rather than the competition for rents in order to obtain power necessary to issue laws (commands), it is impossible to seek rents. And even if rents are obtained, impossible to hold them. Yet this system does not require that we abandon the construction of commons. Only abandon the rentiers. So while it was necessary to centralize rents in order to extinguish family, guild and tribal rents, it is now equally necessary to necessary to ban rents permanently. All that is required is universal standing and operational calculability.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-27 13:06:00 UTC
ANY POLITICAL STATEMENT USING THE WORD “FAIR” AS A INSTRUMENTAL MEASURE IS A LIE.
(worth repeating)
–“Fairness may be perceptible but it is not instrumentally calculable, and as such the scope of fairness is limited to members of the small, local group; and any use of the word ‘fair’ beyond the immediately perceptible is not only an error it is a deception if not an outright lie.”–
–“We have a sense of fairness – the correct term is ‘Proportionality’, and left and right value proportionality differently (equality vs meritocracy), however it is true that all people sense violations of proportionality. However, the fact remains that this is the projection of a sense-perception onto a scale requiring instrumentalism. As such, any statement of proportionality is a fallacy since such a thing is incalculable. Instead, we respond to people who are in need, but we do not SUPPORT people who are in need as a matter of course, because it is UNFAIR (disproportionate) to support people who systemically seek rents at the expense of others. We DO seek to insure each other against the vicissitudes of life, but we also seek to insure each other against free riding. One cannot make one statement without making the other without engaging in verbal deception.”—
Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-21 11:09:00 UTC
Rotbbarianism failed becsuse it is the philosophy of levantine low trust peoples. Aristocratia inspires because it is the philosophy of north sea high trust warriors.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-19 21:07:00 UTC
Women are wonderful but they come and go.
Men are loyal and remain.
We must take better care of one another.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-19 20:43:00 UTC
Honestly, we pity those of you who seek security and predictability rather than innovation, adventure an conquest.
You are mere mortals. And we are mere mortals who challenge the gods.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-19 20:33:00 UTC