PROPERTARIANISM AND ITS DISCONTENTS (sic)
So far Propertarianism has spun off a number of groups, and affected change on related philosophical schools.
However, what does not seem to ‘spin off’ is the reduction of all thought and action to economic language of gains, losses and incentives.
I explain traditions in economic prose that is merely an extension of physical science.
The reason others don’t take this with them, being that most folks are looking for mindfulness (stoic exit) or fulfillment (romantic exit) or some sort of justification for their intuitions (philosophical exit), or excuse for lack of competitive ability (fictional exit). They’re looking for exit – not responsibility.
They are not looking for a METHOD OF RULE that produces superior competition for the group, and superior rewards for rulers, or competitive transcendence (meaning evolution and speciation) of man.
Aristocracy = Rule by the Best, Continuous Competitiion, and as a result Continuous Evolution, resulting in Speciation and Transcendence – all of it at a higher standard of living, and therefore with greater agency.
A religion that provides mindfulness in the personal, interpersonal, and political realms, to those what want the benefits of aristocracy without the responsibility, is only interesting to me so far as it provides means of producing that mindfulness in favor of action, of competition, of invention, of transcendence – not by exit, but by responsibility.
Eat The Weak.
Form: Critique
-
Propertarianism And Its Discontents (Sic)
PROPERTARIANISM AND ITS DISCONTENTS (sic) So far Propertarianism has spun off a number of groups, and affected change on related philosophical schools. However, what does not seem to ‘spin off’ is the reduction of all thought and action to economic language of gains, losses and incentives. I explain traditions in economic prose that is merely an extension of physical science. The reason others don’t take this with them, being that most folks are looking for mindfulness (stoic exit) or fulfillment (romantic exit) or some sort of justification for their intuitions (philosophical exit), or excuse for lack of competitive ability (fictional exit). They’re looking for exit – not responsibility. They are not looking for a METHOD OF RULE that produces superior competition for the group, and superior rewards for rulers, or competitive transcendence (meaning evolution and speciation) of man. Aristocracy = Rule by the Best, Continuous Competitiion, and as a result Continuous Evolution, resulting in Speciation and Transcendence – all of it at a higher standard of living, and therefore with greater agency. A religion that provides mindfulness in the personal, interpersonal, and political realms, to those what want the benefits of aristocracy without the responsibility, is only interesting to me so far as it provides means of producing that mindfulness in favor of action, of competition, of invention, of transcendence – not by exit, but by responsibility. Eat The Weak. -
PROPERTARIANISM AND ITS DISCONTENTS (sic) So far Propertarianism has spun off a
PROPERTARIANISM AND ITS DISCONTENTS (sic)
So far Propertarianism has spun off a number of groups, and affected change on related philosophical schools.
However, what does not seem to ‘spin off’ is the reduction of all thought and action to economic language of gains, losses and incentives.
I explain traditions in economic prose that is merely an extension of physical science.
The reason others don’t take this with them, being that most folks are looking for mindfulness (stoic exit) or fulfillment (romantic exit) or some sort of justification for their intuitions (philosophical exit), or excuse for lack of competitive ability (fictional exit). They’re looking for exit – not responsibility.
They are not looking for a METHOD OF RULE that produces superior competition for the group, and superior rewards for rulers, or competitive transcendence (meaning evolution and speciation) of man.
Aristocracy = Rule by the Best, Continuous Competitiion, and as a result Continuous Evolution, resulting in Speciation and Transcendence – all of it at a higher standard of living, and therefore with greater agency.
A religion that provides mindfulness in the personal, interpersonal, and political realms, to those what want the benefits of aristocracy without the responsibility, is only interesting to me so far as it provides means of producing that mindfulness in favor of action, of competition, of invention, of transcendence – not by exit, but by responsibility.
Eat The Weak.
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-09 13:43:00 UTC
-
Argumentation Ethics, Dialectic, Piplul (Lying)
Argumentation Ethics = Pilpul > Dialectic > Obscurantism + Suggestion + Redaction + Fiction > Fictionalism (conflation) > abrahamism > marxism-postmodernism. – Argumentation and non-contradiction originate in legal justification post-cooperation, not in constraints prior to cooperation. The first question of cooperation is ‘why don’t I kill you and take your stuff’, and only once we enter into an agreement do we justify our words and deeds within that agreement – thereby relying upon internal consistency (non-contradiction). Prior to that fact, no cooperation and nor moral constraint exists – it is only desired. Moreover, the logic of cooperation is not binary. We live in an amoral world of violence, theft, conspiracy and deception, and while we can construct cooperation, we construct cooperation at will given the costs and returns. And our choices at any time are to: (a) preserve the options of violence, theft, deception and conspiracy until opportunity avails to use it, (b) agree not to aggress but not to cooperate either (c) cooperate when useful preserving future opportunity for cooperation (d) cooperate whenever possible, expecting the same, (e) cease any level of cooperation and retreat to a prior level. So, contradiction is a test for a judge in matters of dispute resolution. It is not a necessary property of cooperation. We can test violations of reciprocity (cooperation) during disputes but no such dependence upon internal consistency exists prior to establishing a agreement (contract) for cooperation. -
Argumentation Ethics, Dialectic, Piplul (Lying)
Argumentation Ethics = Pilpul > Dialectic > Obscurantism + Suggestion + Redaction + Fiction > Fictionalism (conflation) > abrahamism > marxism-postmodernism. – Argumentation and non-contradiction originate in legal justification post-cooperation, not in constraints prior to cooperation. The first question of cooperation is ‘why don’t I kill you and take your stuff’, and only once we enter into an agreement do we justify our words and deeds within that agreement – thereby relying upon internal consistency (non-contradiction). Prior to that fact, no cooperation and nor moral constraint exists – it is only desired. Moreover, the logic of cooperation is not binary. We live in an amoral world of violence, theft, conspiracy and deception, and while we can construct cooperation, we construct cooperation at will given the costs and returns. And our choices at any time are to: (a) preserve the options of violence, theft, deception and conspiracy until opportunity avails to use it, (b) agree not to aggress but not to cooperate either (c) cooperate when useful preserving future opportunity for cooperation (d) cooperate whenever possible, expecting the same, (e) cease any level of cooperation and retreat to a prior level. So, contradiction is a test for a judge in matters of dispute resolution. It is not a necessary property of cooperation. We can test violations of reciprocity (cooperation) during disputes but no such dependence upon internal consistency exists prior to establishing a agreement (contract) for cooperation. -
ARGUMENTATION ETHICS, DIALECTIC, PIPLUL (LYING) Argumentation Ethics = Pilpul >
ARGUMENTATION ETHICS, DIALECTIC, PIPLUL (LYING)
Argumentation Ethics = Pilpul > Dialectic > Obscurantism + Suggestion + Redaction + Fiction > Fictionalism (conflation) > abrahamism > marxism-postmodernism.
– Argumentation and non-contradiction originate in legal justification post-cooperation, not in constraints prior to cooperation.
The first question of cooperation is ‘why don’t I kill you and take your stuff’, and only once we enter into an agreement do we justify our words and deeds within that agreement – thereby relying upon internal consistency (non-contradiction).
Prior to that fact, no cooperation and nor moral constraint exists – it is only desired. Moreover, the logic of cooperation is not binary.
We live in an amoral world of violence, theft, conspiracy and deception, and while we can construct cooperation, we construct cooperation at will given the costs and returns.
And our choices at any time are to:
(a) preserve the options of violence, theft, deception and conspiracy until opportunity avails to use it,
(b) agree not to aggress but not to cooperate either
(c) cooperate when useful preserving future opportunity for cooperation
(d) cooperate whenever possible, expecting the same,
(e) cease any level of cooperation and retreat to a prior level.
So, contradiction is a test for a judge in matters of dispute resolution. It is not a necessary property of cooperation. We can test violations of reciprocity (cooperation) during disputes but no such dependence upon internal consistency exists prior to establishing a agreement (contract) for cooperation.
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-06 12:49:00 UTC
-
The Technique – Insult, Repeat Central Argument, Exhaust.
Nah. I don’t make argumentative fallacies. Whenever I think the other party is disingenuous or stupid I use Ad Hominems to increase their frustration and dampen their feeling of success, then restate the central argument, and repeat that process in response to every retort until the other party gives up. This allows me to construct an argument and appeal to the audience, rather than interact with the individual. It makes enemies that tend to leave you alone afterward as not being worth their trouble – which is the whole point. Meanwhile you’ve enlightened all the lurkers by using the useful idiot’s blathering as a promotional vehicle. I learned this technique back in the 80’s and i’ve maintained the zero-tolerance-policy and unforgiving retaliation since that time. -
The Technique – Insult, Repeat Central Argument, Exhaust.
Nah. I don’t make argumentative fallacies. Whenever I think the other party is disingenuous or stupid I use Ad Hominems to increase their frustration and dampen their feeling of success, then restate the central argument, and repeat that process in response to every retort until the other party gives up. This allows me to construct an argument and appeal to the audience, rather than interact with the individual. It makes enemies that tend to leave you alone afterward as not being worth their trouble – which is the whole point. Meanwhile you’ve enlightened all the lurkers by using the useful idiot’s blathering as a promotional vehicle. I learned this technique back in the 80’s and i’ve maintained the zero-tolerance-policy and unforgiving retaliation since that time. -
THE TECHNIQUE – INSULT, REPEAT CENTRAL ARGUMENT, EXHAUST. Nah. I don’t make argu
THE TECHNIQUE – INSULT, REPEAT CENTRAL ARGUMENT, EXHAUST.
Nah. I don’t make argumentative fallacies. Whenever I think the other party is disingenuous or stupid I use Ad Hominems to increase their frustration and dampen their feeling of success, then restate the central argument, and repeat that process in response to every retort until the other party gives up. This allows me to construct an argument and appeal to the audience, rather than interact with the individual. It makes enemies that tend to leave you alone afterward as not being worth their trouble – which is the whole point. Meanwhile you’ve enlightened all the lurkers by using the useful idiot’s blathering as a promotional vehicle. I learned this technique back in the 80’s and i’ve maintained the zero-tolerance-policy and unforgiving retaliation since that time.
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-02 14:00:00 UTC
-
Mindfulness is achievable – that’s the evidence. The question is why we need to
Mindfulness is achievable – that’s the evidence. The question is why we need to achieve it by deception…. we don’t. Buddha was speaking in conflationary nonsense because he lacked the scientific means to speak otherwise. But his original attempt at producing a discipline of mindfulness was second only to the stoics. In my opinion, the principle purpose of studying philosophy is also mindfulness.