Form: Definition

  • DRAFT – WORK IN PROGRESS What is the difference between morals, ethics and manne

    DRAFT – WORK IN PROGRESS

    What is the difference between morals, ethics and manners?

    CORRECT ANSWER:

    It’s not complicated – if we explain it in **economic** rather than ‘moral’ language.

    Western civilization is a commercial civilization (middle class), and that is the reason for our wealth, cleanliness, orderliness, customer service, and tolerance. The west was more successful than all but the Japanese at suppression of selfish public behavior, and for this reason was able to produce commons that people did not impose costs upon, providing incentive (lacking disincentive) to produce commons, and therefore creating the high returns on the commons. (Effectively, westerners treat the commons – common spaces and everything in them – as sacred).

    Engage only in completely voluntary exchanges. That means do not impose costs upon others whether attention (mental), disgust(emotion), or action (body), on their demonstrated interests (things, family, business), and the “commons” anything the public may make use of.

    Instead, pay the cost of controlling yourself, by maintaining ‘situational awareness of others’ (consideration), especially by managing your children. The public space is not something you may make use of as you desire. it is not your home.

    * **Series: Hygiene > Dress > Manners > Ethics > Morals > Laws > Reciprocity**

    MANNERS

    **Manners** advertise fitness for reciprocity. The more costly the manners, the higher the suppression of impulse, the greater the demonstration of agency and training, the better the promise and better the predictor of fitness for reciprocity.

    **Respect** consists of using manners to demonstrate reciprocity and presumption of reciprocity regardless of differences between parties, including differences in the status spectrum, differences in wants and needs, differences in opinion, and differences in preferences.

    **Disrespect** consists of irreciprocity presumption of irreciprocity given differences between parties, including differences in the status spectrum, differences in wants and needs, differences in knowledge, habit, and opinion, and differences in preferences.

    **Insult** consists of (…)

    **Resistance** consist of (…)

    **Defection** consists of (…)

    || Spectrum: genetic > sexual > social > economic > political > military

    **Display**

    * **Hygiene**

    * **Dress**

    * **Movement**

    **Word**

    * **Speech**

    **Deed**

    * **Action**

    * **Space**

    Manners signal respect by paying cost of observance, and require reciprocity by equal payment of costs of observance.

    Respect refers to presumption of the spectrum of reciprocity to beneficence by your demonstration of respect for others interests, and the interest of the commons.

    Manners are your ‘advertising’ for worthiness of respect. Lack of manners are your ‘advertising’ for unworthiness of respect: meaning, not giving your attention, consideration, or resources (time, energy). And poor manners require others actively disrespect you (‘punish you’) for imposing costs upon others.

    ETHICS

    (…)

    MORALS

    (…)


    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-24 15:33:00 UTC

  • DEFINITIONS VIA HAYEK Liberalism: “limiting the coercive powers of all governmen

    DEFINITIONS VIA HAYEK

    Liberalism: “limiting the coercive powers of all government”

    Democracy: “limiting the coercive power of government only to current majority opinion.”

    OPPOSITIONS

    From Liberalism to Totalitarianism

    From Democracy to Authoritarianism


    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-19 14:37:00 UTC

  • Rule of law by reciprocity within the limits of proportionality (defection), whe

    Rule of law by reciprocity within the limits of proportionality (defection), where Reciprocity consists of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, free of imposition upon the demonstrated of interests of others by externality.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-17 17:31:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206990380237021185

    Reply addressees: @ChristaylorBrwn @dallas101346 @PeterSchiff @realDonaldTrump

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206990079526363141


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @ChristaylorBrwn @dallas101346 @PeterSchiff @realDonaldTrump You either have rule of law by Sovereignty, Demonstrated Interest, Reciprocity, Testimonial Truth and Contract, or you have discretionary rule that seeks to license some form of violation of sovereignty and reciprocity by deceit.
    Capitalism is another lie by half truth.
    Period.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1206990079526363141


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @ChristaylorBrwn @dallas101346 @PeterSchiff @realDonaldTrump You either have rule of law by Sovereignty, Demonstrated Interest, Reciprocity, Testimonial Truth and Contract, or you have discretionary rule that seeks to license some form of violation of sovereignty and reciprocity by deceit.
    Capitalism is another lie by half truth.
    Period.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1206990079526363141

  • Externalities

    Externalities.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-17 17:08:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206984564750651392

    Reply addressees: @ChristaylorBrwn @dallas101346 @PeterSchiff @realDonaldTrump

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206984485855727616


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @ChristaylorBrwn @dallas101346 @PeterSchiff @realDonaldTrump Define unfettered capitalism because you’re a sucker for another of the tribe’s false dichotomies.

    There is no more productive system than rule of law of reciprocity within the limits of proportionality.

    The result is markets.
    Jewish capitalism != European rule of law

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1206984485855727616


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @ChristaylorBrwn @dallas101346 @PeterSchiff @realDonaldTrump Define unfettered capitalism because you’re a sucker for another of the tribe’s false dichotomies.

    There is no more productive system than rule of law of reciprocity within the limits of proportionality.

    The result is markets.
    Jewish capitalism != European rule of law

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1206984485855727616

  • Speaking a lie does not require intent, but a failure of due diligence not to li

    Speaking a lie does not require intent, but a failure of due diligence not to lie. Speaking the truth does not require one intends to.

    Intent determines punishment, harm does not, and so… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=531709000759328&id=100017606988153


    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-17 14:12:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206940298582142976

  • Speaking a lie does not require intent, but a failure of due diligence not to li

    Speaking a lie does not require intent, but a failure of due diligence not to lie. Speaking the truth does not require one intends to. Intent determines punishment, harm does not, and so restitution does not. Difference between permisssive ingroup moral and scientific judicial.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-17 11:03:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206892789478371328

    Reply addressees: @james__jenko

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206712992437592064


    IN REPLY TO:

    @james__jenko

    @curtdoolittle The 1st simple example of an irrational assertion would be that I lied (just because I haven’t expanded on the accusation is not the same as a lie). Considering your a fairly intelligent guy and probably understand that, one could reasonably conclude that you just lied.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206712992437592064

  • Speaking a lie does not require intent, but a failure of due diligence not to li

    Speaking a lie does not require intent, but a failure of due diligence not to lie. Speaking the truth does not require one intends to.

    Intent determines punishment, harm does not, and so restitution does not. That’s the difference between permissive ingroup moral and scientific judicial.

    So it’s that I do understand – that most lies hide under cover of moral pretense w/o intent, but is always failure of due diligence, assumed or by intent, that are the basis for sophistry, plausible denial, and esp abrahamic deceit.

    Positivism is dead. Science = falsification. Truth = falsification. Intent is irrelevant in crime.

    Harm exists whether you intend it or not.

    If you don’t want to pay for your unintended harms, don’t take actions the consequences of which you don’t understand.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-17 09:12:00 UTC

  • I try to define human claims by demonstrated behavior, not by what people claim.

    I try to define human claims by demonstrated behavior, not by what people claim.Demarcation is demonstrated:
    Theology, Philosophy, Rationalism, Logics, Mathematics, Physical Sciences, Economics and Law all operate by different inclusions, exclusions, and operational requirements.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-16 23:02:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206711210776956928

    Reply addressees: @james__jenko

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206707683518234629


    IN REPLY TO:

    @james__jenko

    @curtdoolittle “Socrates speaks of philosophy as the love of wisdom, implying thereby its pursuit rather than its attainment”. (Adler)

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206707683518234629

  • ERIC: QUESTION: Please explain a ‘symmetry’ in math, physics, economics. It’s an

    ERIC: QUESTION: Please explain a ‘symmetry’ in math, physics, economics. It’s an important topic without advocate. (A symmetry: no external information is required to maintain state.) It’s the physical universe’s test of closure.
    @EricRWeinstein


    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-16 17:13:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206623271770308608

  • it’s the most simple language possible for the desription of constant relations

    it’s the most simple language possible for the desription of constant relations.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-16 01:58:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206393092686983169

    Reply addressees: @YvesBurri

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206392720333459457


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @YvesBurri We use the terms noun (name, disambiguates referents) adjective (disambiguates names) and verb (operation) and adverb (disambiguates verbs) for recursive disambiguation. Math uses a small number of verbs all of which are variations on addition: one change in position.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1206392720333459457


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @YvesBurri We use the terms noun (name, disambiguates referents) adjective (disambiguates names) and verb (operation) and adverb (disambiguates verbs) for recursive disambiguation. Math uses a small number of verbs all of which are variations on addition: one change in position.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1206392720333459457