As far as I understand a concept refers to a general rule or theory, that consists of a set of properties that together correspond to a set of referents, the properties of which vary from existential, to experiential, to imaginary.
And this definition survives physical correspondence in the brain, verbal description using language, and what we can imagine in real time.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-06 12:38:00 UTC
Don’t have the time to put a list together. Although it’s a good topic. Roman Empire Travel=Euro Empire Travel. Econ. Media.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-06 12:03:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773129436594073600
Reply addressees: @cg_mischling
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773125549778620420
IN REPLY TO:
@cg_mischling
@curtdoolittle so modernization (not modernity) realized global dissemination of lies? Where can I learn more (sincere)?
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773125549778620420
Q&A: “CURT: IS THE TERM ‘FREE MARKET’ A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS?””
(interesting)
—“Hey Curt: Is the term “free market” not a contradiction in terms? Is a market as a norm facilitating fully-informed voluntary (etc.) interactions not in and of itself a restriction imposed on those who want to conduct unfair, unbalanced, involuntary interactions? Can such a thing even be called free?”—
Well you know, I love this question because you’re right of course.
It depends upon what we consider the cost of entry into that market. If the cost is non imposition of costs, then yes, it’s been imposed upon us and that seems to be a good arrangement. But how are the people who impose the prohibition on costs compensated? Usually through taxes (commissions).
So when we say ‘free trade’ independent of fees, that’s hard to defend as anything other than free riding. If we’re saying free trade with only those required fees, then that’s easy to defend as both an imputable cost, and one that’s free of imposition. And if we’re saying unfree trade is that which imposes costs for other purposes (external use) then that’s probably incorrect if we agree with the external use. And if we’re saying unfree trade is that which imposes costs for other purposes (external use) that we disagree with, then that’s probably a bad thing.
In most of our history you had to pay two costs: 1 – forgo the opportunity to benefit from the imposition of costs upon others, and 2- pay a commission on the proceeds of profiting from the market in order to pay for the imposition of the non-imposition of costs.
Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-06 11:24:00 UTC
for cowards it is. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-06 11:13:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773116959479259137
Reply addressees: @cg_mischling
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773116106886160384
IN REPLY TO:
@cg_mischling
@curtdoolittle pipe dream
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773116106886160384
Curt Doolittle
I tend to view western aristocratic egalitarianism as demanding respect for property in exchange for the franchise of Liberty.
David Mondrus
“aristocratic egalitarianism” vs “pathological altruism”. The demand of respect for property in exchange for liberty is the difference.
Curt Doolittle
Let me think about that because it is insightful. Hmmm. Is that the origin? Yes?
Damn. Yes.
David Mondrus
The altruism demands nothing in return. It supplicates to the needy saying in essence “love us, we’ll give you whatever you want”. The ultimate female strategy.
Curt Doolittle
Yes. And now you’ve synthesized the female by free-riding upon the male. Nice.
David Mondrus
But that is in essence female. Free riding males is their survival strategy. After all, rape is better than death, esp if it’s couched in socially acceptable terms like “stealing the bride” (the “-stans” now), or dowry (selling the bride) India.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-06 10:52:00 UTC
Q&A: JUSTLY ACUIRED PROPERTY
—“So I guess my real question is this: do you draw a distinction between justly acquired property and unjustly acquired property? If not, aren’t you just making a convoluted defense of the “might makes right” argument?”— NATHANIEL
I’m going to try to answer two questions.
(a) might-makes-right
(b) justly acquired property
(a) might does not make right, but one cannot make right without might. What makes right is voluntary cooperation. Voluntary cooperation requires non-imposition of costs against that which one has acquired without the imposition of costs.
(b) we impose no costs when we acquire property by discovery(homesteading), transformation, or productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, limited to externalities of the same constraint upon the imposition of costs.
(c) What separates high trust propertarianism from low trust libertarianism, is the scope of property is not artificial in Propertarianism. It’s what’s necessary for a voluntary polity to form and persist.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-06 09:30:00 UTC
Andrii Drozda Марта Госовська I have a german techy friend who wants to learn russian (I know, not ukrainian, but russian). Can you PM me and suggest who he might want to talk to? Thx
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-06 03:49:00 UTC
THIS IS A VERY GOOD LINE OF THINKING.
As far as I know those feelings of intellectual bliss are caused by the pack response combined with obviating the labor of reason. Comfort food, comfort of home, comfort of surrendering to the will of the pack.
Now, there are many kinds of feelings of bliss, as well as pleasure and joy. Some of them are clearly good – church, festival, feast, sporting event, and play. Some of them are less good because they do not require a commons to produce them and therefore require more methods of escape by the individual(communes and cults). Some of them are less good because they cause disconnection from reality(mental states). And some of them are less good because they cause physical and commons damage by consequence when escaping reality (drug use).
GOOD
Festivals, sporting events, theatres, Arts, literature, church, prayer/contemplation …. these are all excellent methods of non-destructive experience of the pack response. While metaphorical they are not false. They are safe means of exploring other worlds, and they obtain the consent of the commons.
HARMFUL THROUGH LOSS OF OPPORTUNITY
There are those things that are no longer metaphorical but false. Those things neither obtain the consent of the commons but reject it and reality.
DESTRUCTIVE
And there are those things that are no longer false but forced – sense-damaging, and body-damaging, and crime-producing drugs.
CLOSING
So, i would flip the question around and ask “What failure exists in any commons that other than outlier-individuals would seek refuge from the commons in physical, emotional, and mental escape, at the cost of socializatino, consumption, physical and mental help?
How should we fix such a commons?
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-06 01:56:00 UTC
OK. I’m gonna have to call in the edgelord troops on this one. lol
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-05 06:33:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/772684142505058304
Reply addressees: @Wasian_NRx @strugglesession @yungjeune @menaquinone4
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/772681562777382913
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/772681562777382913
This is an exceptionally good series because you bring into focus the shared challenge throughout each generation: their ongoing attempt to solve the problem of modernity: morality at our new industrial scale, (just as the great transformation in the 5th century bc was created by the scale of our cities and the markets they created between them.
Most of these men are demonized by one politically evangelical side or the other despite their various attempts to solve the same problem. It’s especially helpful that you touch on the … exaggerated focus of each of these thinkers, as ‘the one way’ to solve the problem. “If we just got everyone to believe this…” is a pretty obvious attempt to replace christianity with a new value system equally homogenous.
What isn’t obvious is that each proposes (like monotheistic religion before them) a MONOPOLY solution to the problem rather than tailoring the social order to the abilities of each class – given that the challenge of modernity is the increasing value provided by our ability to learn, rather than our ability to labor or escape labor.
I think this is the question that we beg but are collectively afraid to answer because it will eliminate the necessary democratic illusion of equality, that replaced the necessary monopoly illusion of monotheism.
The one persona I feel you are missing is perhaps Thorstein Veblen. Your addition of Ruskin’s aesthetics is … delightful – I wouldn’t have thought to add him. You’ve elegantly illustrated that these are all collectively moral men attempting to preserve monotheistic cultural homogeneity in new institutional form.
But now that you illustrated the similarities in ambition, it might be just as informative and helpful to illustrate the dissimilarities advocated by the outliers: Marx/Keynes/Rawls(lower/left classes) on one end, Locke/Smith/Hayek(middle/libertarian class) in the center, and Nietzche/Darwin/Spencer on the other(upper/right classes).
It might be interesting to compare the moral approach you’ve taken, with the three competing class propositions that would illustrate the conflict between classes more clearly.
My position is that we are always just choosing between dysgenic, compromise, and eugenic reproduction. And that the rest of our pontification regardless of position is all justification of those priors.
Anyway. I’m just offering thoughts as a way of appreciating your work.
Thank you.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-05 06:14:00 UTC