—“Would you agree: reciprocity provides the science of reciprocity, and the “reason” to be moral absent religion is that it’s an effective strategy for group level survival/competition – and effective personally because of the social value of being reciprocal and cost of not being?”—Sean Lester
Yes. the more moral, the lower friction, the greater risk tolerance, the higher velocity, the greater wealth.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-01 21:29:00 UTC
SURE. LET ME HELP YOU: EVOLUTION OF ARGUMENTATION
—“So I’ll ask the big guy: Is libertarianism just economic determinism for the middle-class? Doesn’t it act as protectionist platform keep the welfare whores from both ends of the spectrum off backs of the productive middle class?”— A Friend
Sure.
THE EVOLUTION OF RESISTANCE MOVEMENTS
Sovereignty arose in our earliest eras as a resistance against equalitarianism (free riding)
Slavery arose in the era of farming, and liberty as a resistance against slavery. (free riding)
Liberty arose in the era of cities, as a rebellion against over taxation. (free riding)
Libertarianism in both european puritan and jewish anarchist forms, arose as a rebellion against *misuse of taxation* in the classical liberal and social democratic era.
1) Equalitarianism > Sovereignty > Law and truth
2) Slavery > Freedom > Abrahamism and deception
3) Taxation > Liberty > Philosophy and idealism
4) Classical Liberalism/Social Democracy > Libertarianism > Pseudo-science, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-moralism.
These are all means of resistance, which is why libertarianism is argued using moral language and shaming rather than the language of violence and law (aristocracy). Just as marxism and socialism and abrahamism (christianity/judaism) are argued using shaming using false narrative of oppression, superstition, idealism, and fictionalism (fictionalism is a technical term).
The underclass was not oppressed, it was domesticated against it’s will into meritocracy and the pastoralists (lowest classes) resisted (ie:judaism and christianity and islam).
The middle classes claimed overtaxation, as did the american colonists, in order to free ride on the aristocracy.
Libertarianism is just restating jewish separatism and false narrative of oppression, when the jews were parasites upon the land holding classes.
American libertarianism was just an attempt to obtain the benefits of seizing the opportunity of the new continent without paying for its (expensive) conquest and defense.
Libertarianism is valid in the sense that it is a resistance movement that prevents downward redistribution. It is invalid in the sense that it opens borders, resists taxation, and seeks not to fight to hold the territory upon which the institutions of law and order make commerce possible.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-01 14:11:00 UTC
Thanks!
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-29 23:08:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/891435225464528897
Bill Joslin
Bill, you took a cut at developing a notation and I can’t find it. I want to give it a few hours of thought and see what I can do with it. Can you find it?
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-29 17:57:00 UTC
—“Where did the Non-Aggression Principle originate? Who was the first philosopher to posit this axiom?”—
by Rik Storey
It was a deliberately and impractically broad term to refer to the loose ethics of classical liberals and also to the legal terminology used by many libertarians. It easily adopted an abstract and pseudo religious quality and is now the scourge of sensible people on the right the world over.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-28 08:12:00 UTC
ANSWERS TO THREE BOOK QUESTIONS
–“Curt, will the book be available for preorder?”—
Um. Of course silly. But not until I feel I know an approximate ship date. It’s still a way off.
—“Will you sign the books?”—
Um. Of course, silly. 😉
—“Is the conference happening in september?”–
Yes, but Megan is in charge of that. I am just her puppet. lol
But of course, yes, I’ll bring a work in progress with me to the conference as long as you folk don’t distract me too much. lol I am really easily distracted.
If I am lucky I will have a lot of it done by then. Most probably.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-26 17:13:00 UTC
Thank Megan. She’s the one with the brains.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-26 14:19:00 UTC
Yeah. You claim it’s ‘good’. I get that you think it’s preferable. I question whether it’s good. And you know, just as there are six or so dimensions of reality, the same applies to value judgements: the so the complete question is whether it’s possible, preferable, good, or true? So unless you can tell me it’s true and it’s possible, whether it’s preferable for an individual or good for the community or mankind is something that remains to be demonstrated.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-26 12:47:00 UTC
It’s ok if I come off defensive. How many challenges of substance do I get? Or are they ad hom’s, special pleading, justifications for preserving self deceptions, retaliation for slaying a sacred cow?
So I tell you what. Find someone who is making a substantive argument where you think I’m being defensive rather than ‘returning the insult that was given in kind’, or ‘preventing a dishonest or false argument from sticking’ or ‘using the argument with the person for illustrative purposes’, or ‘holding the person to a false argument until they must depart or surrender so that they can’t claim success.”
I want to see one.
I do.
Because in general I find that people use projection to insinuate or suggest I have incentives and use methods other than those that I do and am open and honest about.
Here is the truth: I use the audience to learn. In large part because it is very difficult for me to understand the thoughts and feelings of ‘ordinary people’. But I cannot let others poison the well for me.
I keep a record of everything I do.
So just as I am not letting you get away with a bullshit accusation, I don’t let others get away with bullshit accusations and framings.
And that is what you call being ‘defensive’.
And I call it ‘prosecuting ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deception for the purpose of maintaining the informational commons.’
In other words, I practice what I preach.
(jay dyer, rick storey, josh, that one christian-ancap guy whose name I forget… there are any number of people who are trying to preserve self deceptions (sacred cows). it’s ok. I understand. But I get very few interesting criticisms to work with. I learn what I must do by arguing with every one of them. but I’m not going to let them get away with it while talking to me. I will keep with the argument until I understand what falsehood they are trying to protect, and then attack it.)
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-26 12:23:00 UTC
Simon Ström / Alexander Zavialov
You know that conversation we had recently where simon wrote a history of europeans and alexander confirmed it.
Can I ask you two to send me your versions of it.
I want to add something about that length in one spot.
Attributed to you, of course.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-26 11:07:00 UTC