THE PARSIMONY OF “ONE”
—“You know that Bill Joslin and Curt Doolittle only give us one law. Anything above that is no longer parsimonious.”— Bryan Nova Brey
The profundity of that statement is something worthy of a great deal of contemplation. Seriously.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-17 20:23:54 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997211125686075398
—“It’s different for men. For women, the purpose of girlfriends for women: make sure nothing is ever my fault. when they are finally ready to handle the truth they go to something else.”—
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-17 18:26:00 UTC
By Bill Joslin
Duschene posed that a shift to, in his words, autonomy (rather than individualism – but colloquially it’s the same reference) is what allowed west to rise – individuals are more productive without necessarily working harder under those conditions.
The outcome was to raise all of humanity out of poverty, sickness and early death. In short Europe, by accidentally providing individual protections and access to markets, did what the Buddha couldn’t.
We have to stop fighting the left according to their definitions because it ends up us doing damages to ourselves.
Early forms of “diversity” specifically the abstraction of kinship sentiment into civic values, produced VARIATION in the polis (variations of those who held the same civic values) and law constrained variation from spinning off into diversity.
Just as equality before the law produces equity, the left blows this into a moral ideal and has us arguing against equality before the law.
They’ve taken the notion of tolerating arbitrary and irrelevant differences for civic life, which increases trust, franchise, and cooperation without destroying civic cohesion (a replacement for religion I might add) and blown this into an ideal and have us arguing against core mechanisms which have produced our rise.
We got here because we incrementally increases agency in the polis by ensuring autonomy (legal.protections access to.
markets) and we did so under the term “individualism” (which I might add is a pre-roman European value of which, without it, western “restlessness” would not have been preserved.)
Let’s stop fighting the enemy’s battles for them.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-17 18:20:00 UTC
TAXATION
by Bill Anderson
—-“A small group of people gather together and then invent debts that the rest of some population owes them, then goes about publicizing and collecting those invented debts.”— J R Fibonacci Hunn
I think you’re addressing a couple of issues in your larger post: the money system and taxation. Let me address taxation in the quote above.
Taxation is an attempt to resolve the free rider problem in group defense. If a group does not defend its territory and resources (including its pool of breeding females) then it will be conquered. This defense and its related expenses is unavoidable. Who pays these costs? Given the choice, many males will choose to avoid paying the costs of defense (understandably having an incentive to avoid the pain and death of war). But the result of allowing some men to free ride on the backs of those providing very dangerous defense services, is that the group may be unable to defend itself and will be conquered. Thus, the fighting males and those with the longest time horizons will bar free riding, by requiring all males to pay for the defense of the group. These required payments for group defense are the origin of taxation, and are unavoidable.
Your other point has to do with abuses of the money system (and taxation), which you rightly intuit as parasitism.
Every generation must secure its own freedoms, and the price is violence. A people who are unwilling to defend their interests with violence will be conquered, either from without or within.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-17 18:08:00 UTC
—“”Religion causes war”—
by Bill Anderson
You have the causality backwards. Males form tribes so that they can control a breeding population of women. Males who fail to do so will be conquered and their genes displaced, so violent conflict is unavoidable. These breeding populations will produce survival behaviors based on their genetic inclinations and their environment. These behaviors will be prioritized, or valued differently in each population, thus distinct value systems emerge (say monogamy vs polygamy for example). These distinct survival strategies are often incommensurate, and thus conflict is the result of their proximity. Some values are the result of “black swan events” which cannot be predicted or are multi generational processes which have catastrophic results. Pre-literate peoples communicated these lessons via myth, and sacralized (made static) those values as God given commandments.
So, religions don’t cause war, competing survival strategies cause war. Religion is the result of a value system (survival strategy), not the cause of it.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-17 18:07:00 UTC
THE PARSIMONY OF “ONE”
—“You know that Bill Joslin and Curt Doolittle only give us one law. Anything above that is no longer parsimonious.”— Bryan Nova Brey
The profundity of that statement is something worthy of a great deal of contemplation. Seriously.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-17 16:23:00 UTC
—“Sometimes I want to live in your brain for a day.”—
I dunno about that… lol. But I will say that working on Propertarianism has made my mind extraordinarily CLEAR – mindful so to speak. With very little noise. And much more agency. And if I could propagate that utility to people I would feel like I did the world a lot of good.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-17 16:22:00 UTC
—“—“Any even semi free nation that doesn’t have ICBMs is a free rider on the commons of the USA”— I don’t know why I never thought of the military as the commons. Just hit me”— A Friend.
Once you start seeing it, you start seeing it everywhere – and then you understand…..
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-17 13:58:00 UTC
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-17 11:03:00 UTC
In Short “No”. We can in mathematics assert axioms and fail to or choose not to assert axioms. In logic, we can assert axioms and fail to or choose not to assert axioms. In reality (the existential universe) we discover laws, or fail to discover laws – we cannot assert them or fail to assert them. We can therefore assert in logic, mathematics, a contract or legislation, a work of fiction, of fantasy, or of theology, that which cannot be exist given the laws of the universe. We can testify honestly without due diligence, other than to limit our introduction of imaginary content we did not observe exists. We cannot testify truthfully to that which we have not performed due diligence against the existential possibility thereof. So we don’t take theology, fantasy, fiction, nor axiomatic logic and mathematics into evidence in court because one cannot testify to them. We only take theology, fantasy, fiction ‘seriously’ as entertainment. And axiomatic logic and mathematics to be taken seriously only as entertainment. Much like we find Numerology, Astrology, and justificationary Philosophy as entertainment (puzzles) before we move to the detective story, slow reveal fiction, and slow reveal fantasy. These are entertaining puzzles, and nothing more. We take ‘seriously’ that which costs. What separates Law, Economics, the Sciences, Physics, mathematical physics, from pure mathematics, logic, fiction (which does abide by a logic), and theology (which does abide most of the time by some set of justifications), is the cost of doing versus imagining. While we cannot in fact LOGICALLY know which scientific theory to prosecute, we can know which is least COSTLY to prosecute given the anticipated returns. And it turns out that in fact, for this very reason, decidability does exist in the pursuit of scientific theory: Cost.