Love:
– Passion (sexual attraction)
– Friendship (making each other better together than alone)
– Familial ( kin: care for one’s offspring and relations)
– Kith (those who we cooperate with at to one degree or another)
– Mankind (the love of mankind)
It is the father’s love of kith and kin, lacking friendship and passion, lacking direct benefit, only external benefit.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-13 08:00:00 UTC
DEFINITION: LAW (‘inescapable’). 1 – Law: a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), insured by the forces (organizations) of nature or man(polity, or government). 2 – Law (physical): a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), discovered by a process of testing(prosecuting) an hypothesis against reality, 3 – Law (Natural): a statement of perpetual continuity (reciprocity) insured by the forces of nature (natural law) 4 – Law (Common): a discovery (finding) of a violation of reciprocity, argued by a plaintiff, defendant, or prosecutor (hypothesis) of the findings of an inquiry by a judge (theory), that survives refutation from other judges (law), insured by a third party insurer of last resort (polity, government). 5 – “Law” (Command) A command issued by the insurer of last resort, insured (enforced) by that insurer of last resort. 6 – “Law” (Legislation): A contract on terms between members of ruling organization, issued by that organization, in its capacity of an insurer of last resort (self insurance). 7 – “Law” (Treaty): An agreement between insurers of last resort, under reciprocal promise of adherence and insurance. Of these seven, command and legislation are not laws, but enforced as if they were laws. Treaties are uninsurable, because compliance is voluntary, unenforcible, and such agreements are, and always have been regularly violated – unless insure
DEFINITION: LAW (‘inescapable’). 1 – Law: a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), insured by the forces (organizations) of nature or man(polity, or government). 2 – Law (physical): a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), discovered by a process of testing(prosecuting) an hypothesis against reality, 3 – Law (Natural): a statement of perpetual continuity (reciprocity) insured by the forces of nature (natural law) 4 – Law (Common): a discovery (finding) of a violation of reciprocity, argued by a plaintiff, defendant, or prosecutor (hypothesis) of the findings of an inquiry by a judge (theory), that survives refutation from other judges (law), insured by a third party insurer of last resort (polity, government). 5 – “Law” (Command) A command issued by the insurer of last resort, insured (enforced) by that insurer of last resort. 6 – “Law” (Legislation): A contract on terms between members of ruling organization, issued by that organization, in its capacity of an insurer of last resort (self insurance). 7 – “Law” (Treaty): An agreement between insurers of last resort, under reciprocal promise of adherence and insurance. Of these seven, command and legislation are not laws, but enforced as if they were laws. Treaties are uninsurable, because compliance is voluntary, unenforcible, and such agreements are, and always have been regularly violated – unless insure
INTUITION, BIAS, PREJUDICE —“Is intuition synonymous with prejudice?”—Skye Stewart We have genetics that cause us to possess intuitions and biases — – both of which are pre-cognitive. A prejudice consists of a pre-judgement, and therefore a judgement we have made by some degree of free association, reason or contemplation. One may develop a prejudice because we also possess a bias, and we may possess a bias because of an intuition, and we may possess an intuition out of genetic necessity or accident, but they are different things, and … … oh… shall I say it? Yes? Therefore they are not to be CONFLATED. lol Sigh. That felt good.
INTUITION, BIAS, PREJUDICE —“Is intuition synonymous with prejudice?”—Skye Stewart We have genetics that cause us to possess intuitions and biases — – both of which are pre-cognitive. A prejudice consists of a pre-judgement, and therefore a judgement we have made by some degree of free association, reason or contemplation. One may develop a prejudice because we also possess a bias, and we may possess a bias because of an intuition, and we may possess an intuition out of genetic necessity or accident, but they are different things, and … … oh… shall I say it? Yes? Therefore they are not to be CONFLATED. lol Sigh. That felt good.
DEFINITIONS, OPERATIONAL, IN SERIES, AND IN EQUILIBRIUM Definitions are very powerful, operational definitions much more so, and operational definitions in series are even more so, and the comparison of series in equilibrium even more so. With definitions in series alone, comprehension increases dramatically. It is equivalent to the difference between the descriptive power of arithmetic and the descriptive power of geometry.
DEFINITIONS, OPERATIONAL, IN SERIES, AND IN EQUILIBRIUM Definitions are very powerful, operational definitions much more so, and operational definitions in series are even more so, and the comparison of series in equilibrium even more so. With definitions in series alone, comprehension increases dramatically. It is equivalent to the difference between the descriptive power of arithmetic and the descriptive power of geometry.
https://propertarianism.com/2017/03/23/natural-law-doesnt-justify-aristocracy-it-justifies-markets-it-is-just-that-natural-law-is-only-possible-under-aristocracy/Q&A: ARISTOCRACY
—“Curt: Could you please define Aristocracy?”— A Friend
Simply? Meritocracy.
Meritocracy how? Markets in Everything.
Markets how? Limited by natural law.
ARISTOCRACY = MARKETS
https://propertarianism.com/2017/03/23/natural-law-doesnt-justify-aristocracy-it-justifies-markets-it-is-just-that-natural-law-is-only-possible-under-aristocracy/
ALL MY POSTS INCLUDING THE TERM ‘ARISTOCRACY’
https://propertarianism.com/?s=aristocracy
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-11 16:56:00 UTC
Q&A: “CURT, WHY DONT YOU USE THE TERM REDUCTION?” —“I am surprised I haven’t heard you mention or talk about reduction in any of your work. Because when I think of Propertarianism ( and I use this to refer to all of your work) I see how you have reduced complex ideas into smaller statements and/or terms(definitions). So I suppose what I think I’m asking is, has reduction played a specific part in your work and if so would it be beneficial for others to understand the process of complexity and reduction?Thanks,”— A Friend Um. I use the terms “Deconflation, Deflationary, Deflate, Parsimony, Parsimonious, and Analytic, and Operational” and I should but don’t use Reduction or Reductonism primarily because (a) I’m not sure what people hear, and (b) i like to emphasize the problem of deconflation rather than simplifications. In other words, it is one thing to reduce things and another to describe how one reduces things. I reduce things largely by a process of deconflation. I achieve that deconflation through the use of a series of techniques: (a) Operational grammar thereby deflating POV. (b) Operational descriptions thereby deflating loading framing, etc (c) Descriptions in Series,(Spectrums, lists, grids, truth tables) thereby deflating the use of terms to describe multiple states. (d) Equilibrial forces between series. (e) The evolutionary result of competition between sets of equilibrial forces. Deconflation and Deflation are in fact, methods of Reductionism. And Reductionism, now that you made me think of it, at least ‘sounds like’ a good term of common understanding for marketing the value of Propertarianism. And I will test it a bit and see if I can make that point now and then. So thank you for the suggestion. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
Q&A: “CURT, WHY DONT YOU USE THE TERM REDUCTION?” —“I am surprised I haven’t heard you mention or talk about reduction in any of your work. Because when I think of Propertarianism ( and I use this to refer to all of your work) I see how you have reduced complex ideas into smaller statements and/or terms(definitions). So I suppose what I think I’m asking is, has reduction played a specific part in your work and if so would it be beneficial for others to understand the process of complexity and reduction?Thanks,”— A Friend Um. I use the terms “Deconflation, Deflationary, Deflate, Parsimony, Parsimonious, and Analytic, and Operational” and I should but don’t use Reduction or Reductonism primarily because (a) I’m not sure what people hear, and (b) i like to emphasize the problem of deconflation rather than simplifications. In other words, it is one thing to reduce things and another to describe how one reduces things. I reduce things largely by a process of deconflation. I achieve that deconflation through the use of a series of techniques: (a) Operational grammar thereby deflating POV. (b) Operational descriptions thereby deflating loading framing, etc (c) Descriptions in Series,(Spectrums, lists, grids, truth tables) thereby deflating the use of terms to describe multiple states. (d) Equilibrial forces between series. (e) The evolutionary result of competition between sets of equilibrial forces. Deconflation and Deflation are in fact, methods of Reductionism. And Reductionism, now that you made me think of it, at least ‘sounds like’ a good term of common understanding for marketing the value of Propertarianism. And I will test it a bit and see if I can make that point now and then. So thank you for the suggestion. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine