Oct 11, 2019, 4:20 PM by Luke Weinhagen “Every man a Sheriff” In a high trust group this is not a request, nor a demand, it is a description. That is the nuance I’d like to add – that it is our individual willingness to apply the law, and to self-enforce, that is the difference not just the idea (other groups see those very same laws, interpret the same ideas, as weak points to exploit). The idea of law, and its individual observance and practice, allows trust to be the prime mover. (shifting from passive to active)
Form: Quote Commentary
-
What Honest Anarchists Are Grasping For: Rule of Law
Oct 11, 2019, 9:50 PM Alain Dwight Anarchy is a rhetorical illusion, it doesn’t exist in reality. There is no rule without rulers, there are no active nouns (rules) without actors implementing them (rulers). Every method of interaction has rules that are set and enforced by rulers. We want rule of law (suppressing free-riding of all forms regardless of rank/class) rather than discretionary rule (cherry picked application), and this is what honest anarchists are grasping for. The rest are essentially libertarians peddling the non aggression principle, which amounts to advocacy for discretionary rule because only some impositions of costs are counted while others are ignored. Most often, imposing costs by way of invading someone’s territory or subverting their social norms is permitted and so retaliation against such actions is considered “initiating aggression” while the initial imposition is not. It’s a great recipe for demanding access to low corruption commons and then calling it aggression if there are any demands or conditions required in terms of sharing the cost to construct and maintain the commons. It’s coerced association – ghetto ethics. NAP and anarchism generally permits blackmail too.
-
What Honest Anarchists Are Grasping For: Rule of Law
Oct 11, 2019, 9:50 PM Alain Dwight Anarchy is a rhetorical illusion, it doesn’t exist in reality. There is no rule without rulers, there are no active nouns (rules) without actors implementing them (rulers). Every method of interaction has rules that are set and enforced by rulers. We want rule of law (suppressing free-riding of all forms regardless of rank/class) rather than discretionary rule (cherry picked application), and this is what honest anarchists are grasping for. The rest are essentially libertarians peddling the non aggression principle, which amounts to advocacy for discretionary rule because only some impositions of costs are counted while others are ignored. Most often, imposing costs by way of invading someone’s territory or subverting their social norms is permitted and so retaliation against such actions is considered “initiating aggression” while the initial imposition is not. It’s a great recipe for demanding access to low corruption commons and then calling it aggression if there are any demands or conditions required in terms of sharing the cost to construct and maintain the commons. It’s coerced association – ghetto ethics. NAP and anarchism generally permits blackmail too.
-
Oct 12, 2019, 8:57 PM —“Sophism is the common form of discourse now. It’s incr
Oct 12, 2019, 8:57 PM
—“Sophism is the common form of discourse now. It’s incredible to watch the stimulus (P) create the response (dissonance). It’s entirely appropriate.”—Benny Burke
-
Oct 12, 2019, 8:57 PM —“Sophism is the common form of discourse now. It’s incr
Oct 12, 2019, 8:57 PM
—“Sophism is the common form of discourse now. It’s incredible to watch the stimulus (P) create the response (dissonance). It’s entirely appropriate.”—Benny Burke
-
All money is a share in a particular economy.
Oct 13, 2019, 6:59 AM by Alain Dwight All money is a share in a particular economy. Having money generated by a predefined, publicly visible algorithm might be a step closer to rule of law in finance, but it’s not a full accounting rule of law for finance and it doesn’t magically make the economy it represents more valuable. To raise the value of shares, rule of law still needs to be applied and enforced separately, at which point crypto’s only advantage (I know of) would be transactions that are marginally more efficient (if true), which would be a fringe benefit, not a revolutionary shift. You can write software to help expose, cut out, and compete with the parasites but that’s going to hit a hard limit, unless you address the underlying issue (a comprehensive plan to replace parasitic control of law w/ rule of law and high trust).
-
I See Evidence of It All Around Me.
Oct 15, 2019, 2:15 PM
—“I can believe in natural law in itself because I see evidence of it all around me. That’s what I attribute all the beauty of creation to.”—Martin Štěpán via Alain Dwight
-
I See Evidence of It All Around Me.
Oct 15, 2019, 2:15 PM
—“I can believe in natural law in itself because I see evidence of it all around me. That’s what I attribute all the beauty of creation to.”—Martin Štěpán via Alain Dwight
-
Scale and The Store of Trust
Oct 15, 2019, 2:22 PM Jonathan Haidt on his book The Coddling of the American Mind standard.co.uk https://standard.co.uk/lifestyle/books/jonathan-haidt-the-coddling-of-the-american-mind-a4261081.html? SCALE AND THE STORE OF TRUST by Luke Weinhagen ( CD: I’m Sharing because of this bit of genius:
—“The system can not scale beyond its ability to generate and store trust and begins to fail immediately when the extraction of stored trust exceeds the production of trust. That store can act as a buffer during a period of backsliding (and can enable a lot of really destructive behavior in the guise of “tolerance”), but it will not save us.”— Luke Weinhagen
) === COMPLETE POST ===
—-“We came out of a century that had some of the worst horrors in history but which made extraordinary progress on almost every conceivable front in the decades afterwards, and now we’re backsliding.” — Jon Haidt
Putting this in the context I’ve been building over the last couple weeks, the “progress” Haidt is describing (from my perspective) are the mechanisms we developed to foster the development of trust that became possible through the shared exposure to those horrors. I agree with both Haidt and Doolittle in that the outcome of this backsliding in inevitable should it continue. The lesson will impose itself. Whether we learn from it, kindly or not, is another matter. Looking at Curt’s response in the same context I’ve been using –
“…conspicuous consumption of compromises between genes, gender, class, and interests” = extraction of trust. “…cooperative necessity in social orders…” = mechanisms for the production of trust
The system can not scale beyond its ability to generate and store trust and begins to fail immediately when the extraction of stored trust exceeds the production of trust. That store can act as a buffer during a period of backsliding (and can enable a lot of really destructive behavior in the guise of “tolerance”), but it will not save us. “Domestication” is the process of transcendence from each of the lower foundational rules of human interaction to the next higher form of interaction/expansion of the capacity to store trust. THE FOUNDATIONS 1. Via Positiva: ……. The Golden Rule. 2. Via Negativa: ….. The Silver Rule. 3. Via Logica: ……….The Natural Law of Reciprocity. 4. Via Existentia: …. Rule of Law, ………………………….. … The Jury, and ………………………….. … Markets in everything. 5. Via Violentia: …. The Iron Rule. Might Makes Right. Both of these texts are worth a read when you get a chance. – Luke Weinhagen
-
Scale and The Store of Trust
Oct 15, 2019, 2:22 PM Jonathan Haidt on his book The Coddling of the American Mind standard.co.uk https://standard.co.uk/lifestyle/books/jonathan-haidt-the-coddling-of-the-american-mind-a4261081.html? SCALE AND THE STORE OF TRUST by Luke Weinhagen ( CD: I’m Sharing because of this bit of genius:
—“The system can not scale beyond its ability to generate and store trust and begins to fail immediately when the extraction of stored trust exceeds the production of trust. That store can act as a buffer during a period of backsliding (and can enable a lot of really destructive behavior in the guise of “tolerance”), but it will not save us.”— Luke Weinhagen
) === COMPLETE POST ===
—-“We came out of a century that had some of the worst horrors in history but which made extraordinary progress on almost every conceivable front in the decades afterwards, and now we’re backsliding.” — Jon Haidt
Putting this in the context I’ve been building over the last couple weeks, the “progress” Haidt is describing (from my perspective) are the mechanisms we developed to foster the development of trust that became possible through the shared exposure to those horrors. I agree with both Haidt and Doolittle in that the outcome of this backsliding in inevitable should it continue. The lesson will impose itself. Whether we learn from it, kindly or not, is another matter. Looking at Curt’s response in the same context I’ve been using –
“…conspicuous consumption of compromises between genes, gender, class, and interests” = extraction of trust. “…cooperative necessity in social orders…” = mechanisms for the production of trust
The system can not scale beyond its ability to generate and store trust and begins to fail immediately when the extraction of stored trust exceeds the production of trust. That store can act as a buffer during a period of backsliding (and can enable a lot of really destructive behavior in the guise of “tolerance”), but it will not save us. “Domestication” is the process of transcendence from each of the lower foundational rules of human interaction to the next higher form of interaction/expansion of the capacity to store trust. THE FOUNDATIONS 1. Via Positiva: ……. The Golden Rule. 2. Via Negativa: ….. The Silver Rule. 3. Via Logica: ……….The Natural Law of Reciprocity. 4. Via Existentia: …. Rule of Law, ………………………….. … The Jury, and ………………………….. … Markets in everything. 5. Via Violentia: …. The Iron Rule. Might Makes Right. Both of these texts are worth a read when you get a chance. – Luke Weinhagen