a) there is no god other than the fictions we create as false appeals to authority that justify our ignorance. Gandalf is as much a god as zeus/jupiter, jeohva or allah – and noticeably of better character. Authur has been more influential on the common anglo man than jesus. In my understanding Aristotle is the father of western thought and his works (those that were not destroyed by the christians and muslims and jews) the only bible (book of wisdom) worth reading. The combination of aristotle, zeno, epicurious, and the stoics constitute the western tradition in rational form. (b) there is no infinite regress, since time has no meaning outside of any given universe. As far as we know the universe(s) are just bubbles of space-time constantly in disequilibrium, and existence has no meaning outside of a universe. To state that the universe must be temporally intuitive to man contradicts the findings of the sciences – both at pre and post human scales. We have consistently found that our presumptions of causality are counter to anthropological and anthropomorphic intuitions. (c) natural law (reciprocity) is an evolutionary necessity for any species that evolves the capacity for sympathetic, voluntary, cooperation. All other strategies are contrary to survival. (d) evidence is that all groups rely on reciprocity for the simple reason that it is universally decidable in matters of cooperation and conflict. (e) ethnocentrism is the optimum group evolutionary strategy given all other known and hypothesized strategies. (f) markets are the optimum group evolutionary strategy given all other known and hypothesized strategies. (g) markets accelerate with the continuous expansion of the suppression of parasitism under the the natural law of reciprocity. As far as I know these are logical necessiteis that have been demonstrated empirically (evidentially) in competition against alternatives.
Form: Argument
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. (a) there is no god other than the fictions w
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(a) there is no god other than the fictions we create as false appeals to authority that justify our ignorance. Gandalf is as much a god as zeus/jupiter, jeohva or allah – and noticeably of better character. Authur has been more influential on the common anglo man than jesus. In my understanding Aristotle is the father of western thought and his works (those that were not destroyed by the christians and muslims and jews) the only bible (book of wisdom) worth reading. The combination of aristotle, zeno, epicurious, and the stoics constitute the western tradition in rational form.
(b) there is no infinite regress, since time has no meaning outside of any given universe. As far as we know the universe(s) are just bubbles of space-time constantly in disequilibrium, and existence has no meaning outside of a universe. To state that the universe must be temporally intuitive to man contradicts the findings of the sciences – both at pre and post human scales. We have consistently found that our presumptions of causality are counter to anthropological and anthropomorphic intuitions.
(c) natural law (reciprocity) is an evolutionary necessity for any species that evolves the capacity for sympathetic, voluntary, cooperation. All other strategies are contrary to survival.
(d) evidence is that all groups rely on reciprocity for the simple reason that it is universally decidable in matters of cooperation and conflict.
(e) ethnocentrism is the optimum group evolutionary strategy given all other known and hypothesized strategies.
(f) markets are the optimum group evolutionary strategy given all other known and hypothesized strategies.
(g) markets accelerate with the continuous expansion of the suppression of parasitism under the the natural law of reciprocity.
As far as I know these are logical necessiteis that have been demonstrated empirically (evidentially) in competition against alternatives.
NO MORE LIES. NO MORE ABRAHAMISM.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-18 16:44:39 UTC
-
Yes, Objectivism Is a Restatement of Ashkenazi Separatism (key Concept)
(But the same method of analysis allows us to decompose every group evolutionary strategy) (a) Objectivism like libertarianism, is simply private property marxism – a monopoly of private property, just as marxism is common property monopoly. With Marxist disincentive to produce private property at one end, Objectivist and Libertarian disincentive to produce common property on the other. (b) Objectivism is argued using the positive and negative sophisms of pilpul and critique, just as are marxism, postmodernism, and the abrahamic religions use the same method of constructing sophisms. (c) All groups must choose between the hierarchy of decisions that allow us to hold territory(property in all forms) from competitors necessary for agrarianism and the production of fixed capital; or the hierarchy of pastoralists that rent the land and treat it as renters (badly – the majority of earth’s peoples); or the hierarchy of predators that treat the land other human groups as resources to extract from (ashkenazi, roma-gypsies, mongols, islam, and late-empire [Disraeli] British). And we can determine which groups pursue which strategy on that spectrum by nothing other than the commons they produce and the condition of those commons. These strategies are *Necessary* given the group’s ability to produce commons (or lack of ability to produce commons) and the (vast) multipliers (returns) that commons produce as a consequence. One does not knowingly pursue a strategy – that would weaken its utility in the population by exposing it to argument just as religion would be weakened by science and rationality. In general, the feminine strategy consumes the commons, the ascendant male strategy trades without paying for commons, and the established male strategy conserves. These are reproductive strategies that are *necessary* given our class, age and gender capital demands. Objectively speaking, Objectivism is, as its origin in Russian Ashkenazi Middle Class would suggest, the middle class philosophy of diasporic askehnazi who seek to preserve pastorlist poly-logical (immoral) ethics, by privatizing host commons (physical, normative, cultural, institutional) rather than contributing to them. Which is what objectivism and libertarianism are reducible to. Every philosophy can be decomposed using these same strategic criteria. And most philosophy consists of middle class appeals for greater influence(ascendant male), the way religion(feminine) is for underclass, and law is for upper class (masculine). -
Yes, Objectivism Is a Restatement of Ashkenazi Separatism (key Concept)
(But the same method of analysis allows us to decompose every group evolutionary strategy) (a) Objectivism like libertarianism, is simply private property marxism – a monopoly of private property, just as marxism is common property monopoly. With Marxist disincentive to produce private property at one end, Objectivist and Libertarian disincentive to produce common property on the other. (b) Objectivism is argued using the positive and negative sophisms of pilpul and critique, just as are marxism, postmodernism, and the abrahamic religions use the same method of constructing sophisms. (c) All groups must choose between the hierarchy of decisions that allow us to hold territory(property in all forms) from competitors necessary for agrarianism and the production of fixed capital; or the hierarchy of pastoralists that rent the land and treat it as renters (badly – the majority of earth’s peoples); or the hierarchy of predators that treat the land other human groups as resources to extract from (ashkenazi, roma-gypsies, mongols, islam, and late-empire [Disraeli] British). And we can determine which groups pursue which strategy on that spectrum by nothing other than the commons they produce and the condition of those commons. These strategies are *Necessary* given the group’s ability to produce commons (or lack of ability to produce commons) and the (vast) multipliers (returns) that commons produce as a consequence. One does not knowingly pursue a strategy – that would weaken its utility in the population by exposing it to argument just as religion would be weakened by science and rationality. In general, the feminine strategy consumes the commons, the ascendant male strategy trades without paying for commons, and the established male strategy conserves. These are reproductive strategies that are *necessary* given our class, age and gender capital demands. Objectively speaking, Objectivism is, as its origin in Russian Ashkenazi Middle Class would suggest, the middle class philosophy of diasporic askehnazi who seek to preserve pastorlist poly-logical (immoral) ethics, by privatizing host commons (physical, normative, cultural, institutional) rather than contributing to them. Which is what objectivism and libertarianism are reducible to. Every philosophy can be decomposed using these same strategic criteria. And most philosophy consists of middle class appeals for greater influence(ascendant male), the way religion(feminine) is for underclass, and law is for upper class (masculine). -
Um. No. Capitalism Has Existed Forever in The West
(just takes a great deal of rule of law and trade before it has any scale) Western civilization has been making use of capitalism since its inception in pre-history. We can see it in the language artifacts of the period, and in their various archeological remains. We did not invent corporations in the period, only extended them to the middle and upper middle classes thereby expanding the institutions that had previously served a very limited minority. What the article describes is the expansion of free capital from a small pool of secular individuals (aristocracy, priesthood) to the middle and upper middle classes in those places with sufficient rule of law also extended to the middle and upper middle classes. This was possible because of technological improvements in sail, increase in population, the culmination of success of the germanic states (Hansa), and the extreme windfall of opening of transatlantic trade – rapidly expanding beyond the previous trade routes of the mediterranean through the indian ocean. Capitalism. —“an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.”— All we see is the necessity of redistributing people from subsistence farming and production with minor market participation and speculation to the majority if not all of people, gradually depending upon market participation and speculation for their subsistence, in order to increase the division of labor, increase productivity thereby, and as a consequence decrease the costs of goods, services, and information in relation to time spent working. Capitalism consists of nothing more than property rights insured by rule of law. The expansion of capitalism raised us out of poverty – particularly the poorest. The problem with the current condition of capitalism (property rights) is that in order to generate the taxation from improved commerce, the state (beginning in the coal era) rapidly removed rights of suit for damage by externalities. In other words, the state removed universal standing in matters of the commons and took to itself (centralized) governance (management) of the commons. This is an easily reversible bit of legal fudge-ery that will restore via negativa competition by court to its historical parallel with via positiva competition by markets. Now the capitalism vs socialism debate is in fact a dishonest bit of rhetorical framing (critique) by a certain minority specializing in propaganda – that’s just historical fact. The debate instead is economic rule of law (capitalism) versus economic rule by arbitrary discretion (socialism). We do not repair the problem of licensed-predation-via-externality by simply granting the state the right of arbitarary discretion free of punitive consequence instead of the private sector the right of arbitrary discretion free of punitive consequence. We fix the problem of insuring that NO ONE has license for predation by externality, by restoring universal standing in the matters of the commons. Replacing one minority’s use of pilpul and critique (lying) with our own use of pilpul and critique (lying) only reduces the only people capable of rule of law to the same (low) level as those that invented and use pilpul and critique. (Which you seem to have a pattern of doing yourself it seems.)
-
Um. No. Capitalism Has Existed Forever in The West
(just takes a great deal of rule of law and trade before it has any scale) Western civilization has been making use of capitalism since its inception in pre-history. We can see it in the language artifacts of the period, and in their various archeological remains. We did not invent corporations in the period, only extended them to the middle and upper middle classes thereby expanding the institutions that had previously served a very limited minority. What the article describes is the expansion of free capital from a small pool of secular individuals (aristocracy, priesthood) to the middle and upper middle classes in those places with sufficient rule of law also extended to the middle and upper middle classes. This was possible because of technological improvements in sail, increase in population, the culmination of success of the germanic states (Hansa), and the extreme windfall of opening of transatlantic trade – rapidly expanding beyond the previous trade routes of the mediterranean through the indian ocean. Capitalism. —“an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.”— All we see is the necessity of redistributing people from subsistence farming and production with minor market participation and speculation to the majority if not all of people, gradually depending upon market participation and speculation for their subsistence, in order to increase the division of labor, increase productivity thereby, and as a consequence decrease the costs of goods, services, and information in relation to time spent working. Capitalism consists of nothing more than property rights insured by rule of law. The expansion of capitalism raised us out of poverty – particularly the poorest. The problem with the current condition of capitalism (property rights) is that in order to generate the taxation from improved commerce, the state (beginning in the coal era) rapidly removed rights of suit for damage by externalities. In other words, the state removed universal standing in matters of the commons and took to itself (centralized) governance (management) of the commons. This is an easily reversible bit of legal fudge-ery that will restore via negativa competition by court to its historical parallel with via positiva competition by markets. Now the capitalism vs socialism debate is in fact a dishonest bit of rhetorical framing (critique) by a certain minority specializing in propaganda – that’s just historical fact. The debate instead is economic rule of law (capitalism) versus economic rule by arbitrary discretion (socialism). We do not repair the problem of licensed-predation-via-externality by simply granting the state the right of arbitarary discretion free of punitive consequence instead of the private sector the right of arbitrary discretion free of punitive consequence. We fix the problem of insuring that NO ONE has license for predation by externality, by restoring universal standing in the matters of the commons. Replacing one minority’s use of pilpul and critique (lying) with our own use of pilpul and critique (lying) only reduces the only people capable of rule of law to the same (low) level as those that invented and use pilpul and critique. (Which you seem to have a pattern of doing yourself it seems.)
-
THE COST OF SOVEREIGNTY: EVERY MAN A WARRIOR, SHERIFF, INSURER —“It’s a bit un
THE COST OF SOVEREIGNTY: EVERY MAN A WARRIOR, SHERIFF, INSURER
—“It’s a bit unclear but let’s say everybody is a free agent and as such free to do what one wants as long as his actions don’t impose additional costs to somebody else…would that be correct..? “—Antonio Simon
Close, but there is a cost (duty) to pay for such a thing, because free agents are not able to resist opponents, if they are allowed to free ride on the defense of accumulateed and asymmetrically distributed capital.
Every man a warrior, a sheriff, and reciprocal insurer, and then every man is sovereign, possessing both liberty (capital) and freedom (action and speech).
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-13 13:03:00 UTC
-
NATURAL LAW ON RACIAL PROFILING IN UNIVERSITIES —-”Is it appropriate to racially
NATURAL LAW ON RACIAL PROFILING IN UNIVERSITIES
—-”Is it appropriate to racially profile college applicants to promote diversity in admissions?”—-
If we use exclusively meritocratic entry, and domestic-only entry, then we aren’t harming anyone in the polity because of their race.
If we use profiling (discriminatory) entry, and include international entry, then we **are harming** people in the polity because of their race.
The only moral (meaning reciprocal) and non-harmful method of allowing profiling (discrimination) is to allow (create) segregated (race-limited) universities.
So we are just (reciprocal, moral) **only** when we have EITHER of the two conditions:
(a) domestic merit only, or we have
(b) discrimination and voluntary association and disassociation (race – limited universities.)
And the current condition is harmful, immoral, unethical, and a violation of natural law of reciprocity.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-13 12:38:00 UTC
-
Religion serves as civic education, and ‘education’ as economic education. If we
Religion serves as civic education, and ‘education’ as economic education. If we end the falsehoods in christianity, and restore our church to truthfulness, then we can restore education to the church – and remove the state’s influence from it.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-13 02:35:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1017598413527973888
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. Religion serves as civic education, and ‘educ
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
Religion serves as civic education, and ‘education’ as economic education. If we end the falsehoods in christianity, and restore our church to truthfulness, then we can restore education to the church – and remove the state’s influence from it.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-13 02:35:19 UTC