Form: Argument

  • TRUTH It’s relatively difficult to regulate simply because it’s somewhat hard to

    TRUTH
    It’s relatively difficult to regulate simply because it’s somewhat hard to write a law that doesn’t produce as many bads as goods. What’s spam and not?
    Current IPV4 protocols are weak
    Current email protocols are weak
    Current IP-Telecom protocols are weak
    Current Anonymizing techniques are sophisticated enough to avoid controls.
    Charging for incoming might do it if it was high enough.
    But we can’t figure out who to charge because labeling or tagging is voluntary.
    The solution is non-anonymous, government (or private sector) account to route through and client software that requires routing through that service. Even then spoofing it’s possible.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-08 21:50:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633585927363735552

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633578262227189760

  • TRUTH It’s relatively difficult to regulate simply because it’s somewhat hard to

    TRUTH
    It’s relatively difficult to regulate simply because it’s somewhat hard to write a law that doesn’t produce as many bads as goods. What’s spam and not?
    Current IPV4 protocols are weak
    Current email protocols are weak
    Current IP-Telecom protocols are weak
    Current Anonymizing techniques are sophisticated enough to avoid controls.
    Charging for incoming might do it if it was high enough.
    But we can’t figure out who to charge because labeling or tagging is voluntary.
    The solution is non-anonymous, government (or private sector) account to route through and client software that requires routing through that service. Even then spoofing it’s possible.

    Reply addressees: @whatifalthist


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-08 21:50:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633585927250497540

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633578262227189760

  • THE DEMARCATION BETWEEN RELIGION, PHILOSOPHY, AND SCIENCE WAS COMPLETED BY THE C

    THE DEMARCATION BETWEEN RELIGION, PHILOSOPHY, AND SCIENCE WAS COMPLETED BY THE COMPUTATIONAL REVOLUTION. WHY?

    Demarcation is complete: science for truth, philosophy for choice. If you try to do anything else, you’re either going to fail, or end up lying. The record of… https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1633522010469875713


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-08 17:57:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633527342537555968

  • Trying to speak about anything ‘true’ in philosophical terms is nearly as bad as

    Trying to speak about anything ‘true’ in philosophical terms is nearly as bad as speaking in theological terms. While philosophy and natural philosophy existed the demarcation is complete, and science is reducible to testimony (truth) and philosophy reducible to preference (not truth).

    There is no point in attempting to push on a string. Philosophy can’t do the job. It’s insufficient. Likewise, the truth cannot tell us what we should prefer. Only what consequences result from the choice of our preferences.

    Even then, it’s pretty easy to science preferences, and then develop a set of rules of preference.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-08 17:36:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633522010469875713

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633512842799480833

  • Trying to speak about anything ‘true’ in philosophical terms is nearly as bad as

    Trying to speak about anything ‘true’ in philosophical terms is nearly as bad as speaking in theological terms. While philosophy and natural philosophy existed the demarcation is complete, and science is reducible to testimony (truth) and philosophy reducible to preference (not truth).

    There is no point in attempting to push on a string. Philosophy can’t do the job. It’s insufficient. Likewise, the truth cannot tell us what we should prefer. Only what consequences result from the choice of our preferences.

    Even then, it’s pretty easy to science preferences, and then develop a set of rules of preference.

    Reply addressees: @CharlesL1902 @demosphachtes @KetaIDFBabe


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-08 17:36:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633522010348290048

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633512842799480833

  • Q: CURT: “WHY DO FEDERATIONS BENEFIT FROM FORMING A TRADE BLOCK?” 1) Nash Equili

    Q: CURT: “WHY DO FEDERATIONS BENEFIT FROM FORMING A TRADE BLOCK?”
    1) Nash Equilibrium: Small countries have no negotiating power in trade. However, an alliance of such countries can negotiate as a block and obtain preferential treatment in negotiation. It’s beneficial to all parties because negotiating itself is costly. The same is true for defense and insurance, or anything where all parties have an interest. It’s the same for business. Would you rather sell easily and a lot to Walmart or to 10,000 independent stores? If you can lock Walmart into a contract then you can plan on an increasingly long time horizon, which reduces risk. Conversely, as in China, where you are ‘concentrated’ in a single market (USA) you are somewhat bound in external actions because of your dependence on that market.

    2) Ending internal frictions of negotiation between parties. It is very painful and expensive to have transport of goods especially, and services somewhat across multiple borders. Open markets within a federation radically discount the friction of trade, just as the distribution of property rights from the village(tribe), to the family, to the individuals in the family eliminated the opportunity for corruption, and increased the velocity of cooperation and trade.

    MEANING:
    Alliance on a) defense, b) external and internal trade, and c) internal insurance against such things as disasters, and in rare cases d) a central bank of currency issuance and exchange, distributes the cost of something that benefits from scale while federation of states allows custom production of commons that do not benefit from scale, and instead, generate FRICTION AND CONFLICT because they do NOT scale.

    -Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-08 17:02:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633513471491940373

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633505618249097225

  • Q: CURT: “WHY DO FEDERATIONS BENEFIT FROM FORMING A TRADE BLOCK?” 1) Nash Equili

    Q: CURT: “WHY DO FEDERATIONS BENEFIT FROM FORMING A TRADE BLOCK?”
    1) Nash Equilibrium: Small countries have no negotiating power in trade. However, an alliance of such countries can negotiate as a block and obtain preferential treatment in negotiation. It’s beneficial to all parties because negotiating itself is costly. The same is true for defense and insurance, or anything where all parties have an interest. It’s the same for business. Would you rather sell easily and a lot to Walmart or to 10,000 independent stores? If you can lock Walmart into a contract then you can plan on an increasingly long time horizon, which reduces risk. Conversely, as in China, where you are ‘concentrated’ in a single market (USA) you are somewhat bound in external actions because of your dependence on that market.

    2) Ending internal frictions of negotiation between parties. It is very painful and expensive to have transport of goods especially, and services somewhat across multiple borders. Open markets within a federation radically discount the friction of trade, just as the distribution of property rights from the village(tribe), to the family, to the individuals in the family eliminated the opportunity for corruption, and increased the velocity of cooperation and trade.

    MEANING:
    Alliance on a) defense, b) external and internal trade, and c) internal insurance against such things as disasters, and in rare cases d) a central bank of currency issuance and exchange, distributes the cost of something that benefits from scale while federation of states allows custom production of commons that do not benefit from scale, and instead, generate FRICTION AND CONFLICT because they do NOT scale.

    -Curt Doolittle

    Reply addressees: @anderstegn


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-08 17:02:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633513471278030854

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633505618249097225

  • “WHAT WE SAW”: WHAT IF ALL PUBLIC SPEECH IN MATTERS PUBLIC WAS SUBJECT TO STRICT

    “WHAT WE SAW”: WHAT IF ALL PUBLIC SPEECH IN MATTERS PUBLIC WAS SUBJECT TO STRICT LIMITS ON PERJURY: TESTIFIABILITY?
    (reforms) (Part 1)
    Trust in government, in our bureaucracies, in our institutions, and in our international institutions is lower than in our industries.

    We saw politicians, public intellectuals, ‘scientists’ and media saturate us with information that was produced by scientists but was in no way science proper: The Intellectual Marketplace equivalent of Court Testimony.

    We saw our government demonstrate just how much a credentialed (undemonstrated) pseudo-elite (incompetent) is desperate to escape the limits placed on service bureaucracies, to seek attention, influence, career climbing, and money – or as in the most obvious case, to escape from collusion by evading regulation to engage in illegal research.

    We saw regulators, bureaucrats, politicians and economists fantasize in creating a utopian economic condition of majority white-collar service workers fulfilling the neoliberal fantasy; to produce state-of-the-union accounts that ignored the spectrum of capital from human, to resource, to built, to formal institutional, to behavioral institutional; to produce GDP numbers that do not reflect either that capital structure, or the ratio between labor competency and productivity necessary to maintain strategic invulnerability; and worse, to leave the country strategically dependent upon the goodwill of existing and potential enemies – enemies who do not want to end the era of authoritarian agrarian empires of conquest that do not require high trust public or public trust in institutions, instead of modern high trust societies and polities, as individual sovereign states, federated for defense, and trading for the common good.

    We saw the corruption of the treasury, the central bank, the banking and financial sector, and SEC – and even the economics profession that enabled the crimes of all of them. And worse, including the CBO, these people put out numbers – especially GDP – that do not capture research and development cost

    We saw the politicization of Justice, the FBI, Homeland Security, and now the CIA – where politicization is just another word for corruption. Especially in the disintermediation of our people from the courts, activist courts, secret courts, and unequal prosecution, all in violation of natural, human, common law, constitutional rights, obligations, and inalienations.

    We saw the failure of our “Insurers of Last Resort” – the first purpose of the government – because of the ‘institutional capture’ of FEMA, CDC, WHO, and now IMF. On top of the failure of the UN that is just a hostile force against the developed world. These people are rent-seekers, seeking exit from the competitive economy, and instead, pursue status-seeking and career climbing along with their peers.

    We saw the ‘forcible conversion’ of our education system from one whose primary function is to produce citizens capable of self-determination by self-determined means and capacity to make democratic decisions under economically and empirically limited means and ends. The academy is for all intents and purposes repeating the Christian destruction of the roman world, from within, by the same means: a new cult promising freedom from the four laws of nature: scarcity, behavior, evolution, and logic.

    We have a limited set of defenses against a corrupt government and its special interests.
    – Boycott: is ineffective outside of commercial interests that are outside of state capture.
    – Canceling: Effective for commercial interests that don’t cave to threats of undermining.
    – The Vote: Ineffective for other than special interests, because votes always reflect those interests and never those the people demand.
    – The Court: Ineffective b/c of limitations on rule of law that grants special privileges to state actors.
    – And Uprising: Effective only for the radical left that assists the state in power accumulation.

    (Continued in Part 2)


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-08 16:50:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633510611656089606

  • “WHAT WE SAW”: WHAT IF ALL PUBLIC SPEECH IN MATTERS PUBLIC WAS SUBJECT TO STRICT

    “WHAT WE SAW”: WHAT IF ALL PUBLIC SPEECH IN MATTERS PUBLIC WAS SUBJECT TO STRICT LIMITS ON PERJURY: TESTIFIABILITY?
    (reforms) (Part 1)
    Trust in government, in our bureaucracies, in our institutions, and in our international institutions is lower than in our industries.

    We saw politicians, public intellectuals, ‘scientists’ and media saturate us with information that was produced by scientists but was in no way science proper: The Intellectual Marketplace equivalent of Court Testimony.

    We saw our government demonstrate just how much a credentialed (undemonstrated) pseudo-elite (incompetent) is desperate to escape the limits placed on service bureaucracies, to seek attention, influence, career climbing, and money – or as in the most obvious case, to escape from collusion by evading regulation to engage in illegal research.

    We saw regulators, bureaucrats, politicians and economists fantasize in creating a utopian economic condition of majority white-collar service workers fulfilling the neoliberal fantasy; to produce state-of-the-union accounts that ignored the spectrum of capital from human, to resource, to built, to formal institutional, to behavioral institutional; to produce GDP numbers that do not reflect either that capital structure, or the ratio between labor competency and productivity necessary to maintain strategic invulnerability; and worse, to leave the country strategically dependent upon the goodwill of existing and potential enemies – enemies who do not want to end the era of authoritarian agrarian empires of conquest that do not require high trust public or public trust in institutions, instead of modern high trust societies and polities, as individual sovereign states, federated for defense, and trading for the common good.

    We saw the corruption of the treasury, the central bank, the banking and financial sector, and SEC – and even the economics profession that enabled the crimes of all of them. And worse, including the CBO, these people put out numbers – especially GDP – that do not capture research and development cost

    We saw the politicization of Justice, the FBI, Homeland Security, and now the CIA – where politicization is just another word for corruption. Especially in the disintermediation of our people from the courts, activist courts, secret courts, and unequal prosecution, all in violation of natural, human, common law, constitutional rights, obligations, and inalienations.

    We saw the failure of our “Insurers of Last Resort” – the first purpose of the government – because of the ‘institutional capture’ of FEMA, CDC, WHO, and now IMF. On top of the failure of the UN that is just a hostile force against the developed world. These people are rent-seekers, seeking exit from the competitive economy, and instead, pursue status-seeking and career climbing along with their peers.

    We saw the ‘forcible conversion’ of our education system from one whose primary function is to produce citizens capable of self-determination by self-determined means and capacity to make democratic decisions under economically and empirically limited means and ends. The academy is for all intents and purposes repeating the Christian destruction of the roman world, from within, by the same means: a new cult promising freedom from the four laws of nature: scarcity, behavior, evolution, and logic.

    We have a limited set of defenses against a corrupt government and its special interests.
    – Boycott: is ineffective outside of commercial interests that are outside of state capture.
    – Canceling: Effective for commercial interests that don’t cave to threats of undermining.
    – The Vote: Ineffective for other than special interests, because votes always reflect those interests and never those the people demand.
    – The Court: Ineffective b/c of limitations on rule of law that grants special privileges to state actors.
    – And Uprising: Effective only for the radical left that assists the state in power accumulation.

    (Continued in Part 2)


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-08 16:50:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633510611156967427

  • THE ONLY MORAL EQUIVALENCY Any moral person can explain his or her reasoning beh

    THE ONLY MORAL EQUIVALENCY
    Any moral person can explain his or her reasoning behind his or her moral actions, and collectively they will produce an infinite number of narratives, despite that their choices and actions that resulted with be the same – or at least indifferently so.

    All moral people are the same in word and deed, and all immoral people are different in word and deed.

    There is only one way to act and speak morally, and that is by reciprocity.

    Reciprocity may vary in context, but it does not vary across contexts. This is why the discipline of morality appears confusion. What consists of reciprocity on culture may not in the next. But across cultures it’s always the same, because there is no cultural context across cultures: just reciprocity.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-07 21:05:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633212259412393985