THERE HAS BEEN NO BATTLE OF IDEAS
There has been massive immigration into left leaning cities, that have dragged the majority middle class federation of nation states into majority lower class demand for authoritarian monopoly.
Big Lies: Marxist, Postmodern, Feminist, HBD-Denial
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-29 15:15:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1233772827809132549
Reply addressees: @TheEconomist
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1233716919779364865
One cannot legislate unbelief(thought)
One cannot legislate belief(thought)
One can legislate public speech(display, word, and deed)
One can legislate proselytizing(sale and distribution)
One can legislate against organized crime (undermining, social construction, addiction)
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-28 22:56:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1233526492556034049
Reply addressees: @Ozpin_88 @WillReturns1066 @Nationalist7346
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1233523623811518465
we don’t want to criminalize christianity, we want to institutionalize it. We just want you to stop lying.
Jefferson restored the bible.
The rest is lies.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-27 22:04:54 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1233151044231802890
Reply addressees: @Seperate4Peace
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1233056570344431617
Yes Ethics (interpersonal) Morality (extrapersonal) Is a Scientific Law https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/27/yes-ethics-interpersonal-morality-extrapersonal-is-a-scientific-law-2/
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-27 14:18:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1233033774327267329
(core) [S]cience absolutely positively can tell you about ethics and morality. Morality, including the moral instincts, consist in reciprocity within the limits of proportionality, where reciprocity consists of limiting our actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer( trade, consumption, harm, destruction, loss) of demonstrated interests free of imposition of costs upon demonstrated interests of others by externality. That’s morality. It’s got to be or evolution (physics) wouldn’t tolerate our existence as a species. There is no difference between physics (involuntary change), economics (productive cooperation), and morality (social cooperation), except we have memory so can invest in and borrow from one another across time (. All that varies is the level of immorality tolerated given the stage of development in the current military, political, and economic circumstances. So yes, science has told us what manners, ethics, morals, consist of. They cannot tell you what those range of actions will be in three years any more than economics can tell you that, because what constitutes reciprocity within the limits of proportionality, varies with the structure of production of polities, commons, goods, services, and information. So we absolutely positively know what the physical and natural laws consist of – because they’re the same – we can judge borrow from one another or invest in one another and punish one another for violating those investments and borrowings (thefts, parasitism, free riding), and we do so by moral intuition we call “altruistic punishment’ – the payment of high personal costs of punishment of others to preserve the high value of trust in cooperation (borrowing, investing) in one another, because of the impossible-to-replace returns on cooperation – wherever cooperation is reciprocal: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, transfers, and free of negative externality. And good luck refuting that scientific claim – because you will not be able to without violating it. It’s a physical law of conscious, cooperative, species beyond which no conscious cooperative species can survive. Evil < Immoral < Unethical < Amoral > Ethical > Moral > Good Quod erat demonstrandum Thus endeth the lesson. fin.
(core) [S]cience absolutely positively can tell you about ethics and morality. Morality, including the moral instincts, consist in reciprocity within the limits of proportionality, where reciprocity consists of limiting our actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer( trade, consumption, harm, destruction, loss) of demonstrated interests free of imposition of costs upon demonstrated interests of others by externality. That’s morality. It’s got to be or evolution (physics) wouldn’t tolerate our existence as a species. There is no difference between physics (involuntary change), economics (productive cooperation), and morality (social cooperation), except we have memory so can invest in and borrow from one another across time (. All that varies is the level of immorality tolerated given the stage of development in the current military, political, and economic circumstances. So yes, science has told us what manners, ethics, morals, consist of. They cannot tell you what those range of actions will be in three years any more than economics can tell you that, because what constitutes reciprocity within the limits of proportionality, varies with the structure of production of polities, commons, goods, services, and information. So we absolutely positively know what the physical and natural laws consist of – because they’re the same – we can judge borrow from one another or invest in one another and punish one another for violating those investments and borrowings (thefts, parasitism, free riding), and we do so by moral intuition we call “altruistic punishment’ – the payment of high personal costs of punishment of others to preserve the high value of trust in cooperation (borrowing, investing) in one another, because of the impossible-to-replace returns on cooperation – wherever cooperation is reciprocal: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, transfers, and free of negative externality. And good luck refuting that scientific claim – because you will not be able to without violating it. It’s a physical law of conscious, cooperative, species beyond which no conscious cooperative species can survive. Evil < Immoral < Unethical < Amoral > Ethical > Moral > Good Quod erat demonstrandum Thus endeth the lesson. fin.
Our Offer of Forbearance https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/27/our-offer-of-forbearance-2/
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-27 14:16:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1233033066383388679
BREAKING THE LIES IS THE ONLY WAY TO SURVIVE
—“Break the lies as the last ditch effort to make peace. And failing that, break the lies anyway as the only means to make sure we don’t get dragged down with their failures. … Either way, the lies must be broken for our civilization to survive.”— Alain Dwight
The lies end. Peace as it is understood today carries with it a payload of tolerance, an acceptance of the current state of things. This is not what we demand. The lies end. We extend to you some measure of forbearance as an opportunity to end your lies yourselves. Refuse this and we will end the lies. We appeal to you to choose well. –By Luke Weinhagen (via Brandon Hayes)
BREAKING THE LIES IS THE ONLY WAY TO SURVIVE
—“Break the lies as the last ditch effort to make peace. And failing that, break the lies anyway as the only means to make sure we don’t get dragged down with their failures. … Either way, the lies must be broken for our civilization to survive.”— Alain Dwight
The lies end. Peace as it is understood today carries with it a payload of tolerance, an acceptance of the current state of things. This is not what we demand. The lies end. We extend to you some measure of forbearance as an opportunity to end your lies yourselves. Refuse this and we will end the lies. We appeal to you to choose well. –By Luke Weinhagen (via Brandon Hayes)
—“so yes, science can tell us what is but not what we ought to do.”—
This is a justificationary position (sophism). |Decidability| = That which is not irreciprocal or false (negatively consequential) -> Value (personal strategy -> Positively Consequential) -> Preference (Inconsequential) Science (law) tells us what we may not do (irreciprocity) – that which is unethical, and immoral. Anything that is not unethical and immoral is merely a PREFERENCE to be settled in the market competition for means and ends. What we ‘ought’ to do is anything we CAN organize voluntarily TO DO that which is not false or irreciprocal. Even so, we can just as equally test positive moral claims by the investments that you make, the externalities caused, and desired outcomes produced. All truth propositions are falsificationary. All moral claims are merely claims that one acts not immorally. All moral propositions, means, and outcomes are testable by reciprocity. All moral propositions are open to triangulation of the returns on investments (compare by ordinality if not cardinality). All moral propositions are decidable by adversarial competition in markets for voluntary production of moral outcomes, given scarcity and competition for means and outcomes. All markets produce empirical results, and as such are scientific. All epistemological questions are the result of falsification by adversarial competition. All moral questions are epistemological questions. All not-evil-immoral-unethical propositions are amoral, ethical, or good, depending upon the means of organizing their production, the structure of their production, and the returns on that production. We can make a claim to means, externalities, or ends, or all three. We can measure the claim, the means, the ends – all three, and do so scientifically. There is nothing in metaphysics, language, psychology, or sociology that cannot be expressed scientifically in these terms. That is a purely scientific statement. Conversely you cannot deny or falsify this statement. Period. If you don’t use these terms one can claim ignorance, on can claim expediency(cost), but one cannot claim anything else. As far as I know, The question of Morality is closed. You can try to create test after test but you will find no test that fails this test.