RT @MartianHoplite: Unpopular point of view: the well-being and the security of races and cultures that have produced almost nothing of val…
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-15 20:34:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184205858579894272
RT @ClownBa73413423: @curtdoolittle @JonHaidt @EveningStandard Curt Doolittle, otherwise known as, The Prosecutor of Liars, The Butcher of…
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-15 20:14:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184200798265401349
—“The low trust population erodes the informal institutions which results in a demand for formal institutions to fill the gap.”–Bill Joslin
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-15 18:06:00 UTC
https://standard.co.uk/lifestyle/books/jonathan-haidt-the-coddling-of-the-american-mind-a4261081.htmlSCALE AND THE STORE OF TRUST
by @[1013719133:2048: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.”— @[1013719133:2048: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 WeinhagenUpdated Oct 15, 2019, 2:22 PM
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-15 14:22:00 UTC
—“”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.””—@[1655513331:2048:Martin Štěpán] via Alain DwightUpdated Oct 15, 2019, 2:15 PM
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-15 14:15:00 UTC
https://standard.co.uk/lifestyle/books/jonathan-haidt-the-coddling-of-the-american-mind-a4261081.htmlJON HAIDT IS A KINDLY MESSENGER. LEARN FROM HIM OR LEARN FROM US UNKINDLY, OR FROM CONSEQUENCES.
—“Here is my interview in @EveningStandard, with Katie Law. I talk about “moral backsliding” –the way some of the moral progress of the last 70 years is coming undone:
https://standard.co.uk/lifestyle/books/jonathan-haidt-the-coddling-of-the-american-mind-a4261081.html “—Jonathan Haidt @JonHaidt
1) NO. We came out of a period of vast economic institutional, cultural, and genetic asymmetry and conspicuous consumption of compromises between genes, gender, class, and interests. We are no longer in conditions making possible conspicuous consumption of signal goods.
2) Under vast asymmetry, like when inheriting a fortune or winning a lottery, we can afford to transgress previous norms and traditions that preserved our common interests. Conversely, having SPENT DOWN all that accumulated capital, we now return to the historical mean: nations.
3) The left is by demonstrated preference cognitively feminine: consumptive, reproductive, maternal, the right masculine: conservative, capital producing, paternal. And women resist tightening the belt more than men do. So you will continue to tighten your belt and resist it all.
4) But cooperative necessity in social orders, like gravity in physical orders, is inescapable – and resistance is expected but ultimately futile. Your mistake is confusing PROGRESS with CONSUMPTION. And confusing OPPRESSION with DOMESTICATION.
5) And we have no choice but to defeat genetic and economic red queens. Why? Demographics is destiny. Your hyperconsumption has expanded the world underclass, reversing thousands of years of human domestication (economic and political eugenics).
6) And in doing so created scarcity of the very goods you seek to hyper-consume. Humans are not insulated from the laws of physics and our productivity, particularly by the consumption of hydrocarbons, not as the liberals presumed – infinite. Welcome to consequences you created.
7) I don’t make errors. Don’t bother trying to refute it. Try to understand it. Belt Tightening will come either by the restoration of nationalism, capital accumulation, and economic and political eugenics or it will come from collapse.
8) We are only equal in poverty. We are only prosperous in inequality. Because inequality is the product of defeating the red queen through genetic, institutional, economic, cultural, and normative capital investment in defeating the red queen in every one of those disciplines.
9) Jon Haidt is a “Kindly Messenger”, delivering a this information in sympathetic terms. You can learn from him. You can learn from those of us who deliver it in unsympathetic terms. Or from the consequences by the conflict you have created with your hyper-consumptive Privilege.Updated Oct 15, 2019, 10:09 AM
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-15 10:09:00 UTC
https://standard.co.uk/lifestyle/books/jonathan-haidt-the-coddling-of-the-american-mind-a4261081.htmlJON HAIDT IS A KINDLY MESSENGER. LEARN FROM HIM OR LEARN FROM US UNKINDLY, OR FROM CONSEQUENCES.
—“Here is my interview in @EveningStandard, with Katie Law. I talk about “moral backsliding” –the way some of the moral progress of the last 70 years is coming undone:
https://standard.co.uk/lifestyle/books/jonathan-haidt-the-coddling-of-the-american-mind-a4261081.html “—Jonathan Haidt @JonHaidt
1) NO. We came out of a period of vast economic institutional, cultural, and genetic asymmetry and conspicuous consumption of compromises between genes, gender, class, and interests. We are no longer in conditions making possible conspicuous consumption of signal goods.
2) Under vast asymmetry, like when inheriting a fortune or winning a lottery, we can afford to transgress previous norms and traditions that preserved our common interests. Conversely, having SPENT DOWN all that accumulated capital, we now return to the historical mean: nations.
3) The left is by demonstrated preference cognitively feminine: consumptive, reproductive, maternal, the right masculine: conservative, capital producing, paternal. And women resist tightening the belt more than men do. So you will continue to tighten your belt and resist it all.
4) But cooperative necessity in social orders, like gravity in physical orders, is inescapable – and resistance is expected but ultimately futile. Your mistake is confusing PROGRESS with CONSUMPTION. And confusing OPPRESSION with DOMESTICATION.
5) And we have no choice but to defeat genetic and economic red queens. Why? Demographics is destiny. Your hyperconsumption has expanded the world underclass, reversing thousands of years of human domestication (economic and political eugenics).
6) And in doing so created scarcity of the very goods you seek to hyper-consume. Humans are not insulated from the laws of physics and our productivity, particularly by the consumption of hydrocarbons, not as the liberals presumed – infinite. Welcome to consequences you created.
7) I don’t make errors. Don’t bother trying to refute it. Try to understand it. Belt Tightening will come either by the restoration of nationalism, capital accumulation, and economic and political eugenics or it will come from collapse.
8) We are only equal in poverty. We are only prosperous in inequality. Because inequality is the product of defeating the red queen through genetic, institutional, economic, cultural, and normative capital investment in defeating the red queen in every one of those disciplines.
9) Jon Haidt is a “Kindly Messenger”, delivering a this information in sympathetic terms. You can learn from him. You can learn from those of us who deliver it in unsympathetic terms. Or from the consequences by the conflict you have created with your hyper-consumptive Privilege.Updated Oct 15, 2019, 10:08 AM
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-15 10:08:00 UTC
EXCERPTS FOR EMPHASIS BY LUCAS CORT
by @[100008389721909:2048:Lucas Cort]
Important parts I’d like to emphasize:
“We just were suckered yet again by the marxists into the false dichotomy of unfettered capitalism – monopoly of the middle class, or unfettered socialism – the monopoly of the underclass, rather than the successful european invention of rule of law, an unfettered monopoly of the upper, aristocratic, or martial class that derives its income from suppression of parasitism resulting in commission we call taxation.”
“So in the twentieth century we destroyed (a) rule of law of tort, destroyed (b) the limits on reproduction of the underclasses, (c) destroyed the monetary and accounting system, (d) destroyed homogeneity of the population, and (e eliminated the monarchy and created a conflict for access to power to circumvent the market and obtain privileges and rents by the state, and (f) ended the prohibition on libel, slander, duel, hanging, fighting, civic defense and policing – all in order to accommodate those peoples not majority middle class (g) ended the family as a system of measurement by which resource consumption was measured.”
“At the highest level we can disambiguate government into Rule (decisions), Government (production and administration of commons), Treasury (revenue and expenses), and insurer of last resort (both negative like military and positive like care taking).”
“So there is no one static form of government producing the commons necessary for the current conditions, but one rule of law under which the production of commons varies according to the demand for commons.
With P-law. we can produce any system of rule, production of commons, treasurer, and insurer of last resort.”
“So I proposed a strictly constructed rule of law, with a monarchy as judge of last resort, a cabinet of professionals, subcontracted bureaucracies, houses for the classes and genders randomly selected like juries, requiring property and service, that have right of veto over taxes, fees. In this system no one is insulated from the law, and we create a market for the suppression of parasitism.
There is more to it but that’s most of it. “This system scales up and down from authoritarian to redistributive as circumstances permit. “Updated Oct 14, 2019, 8:47 PM
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-14 20:47:00 UTC
—“If one is profiting from the commons one must reciprocate by being responsible to maintain the commons.”—Christopher Kilgore
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-14 15:08:00 UTC
—“What kind of incision will I need, to give you a heart?”— Little old Lady
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-14 10:21:00 UTC