Mar 20, 2020, 12:52 PM
The good generated by a middle class, the demand for expansion of the middle class, always and everywhere expands until the capital is consumed by the middle class by expanding the lower classes, leading to dysgenia, decline, and collapse.
This is the story of history – not economics.
And can we train feelings and intuitions? Yes. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/and-can-we-train-feelings-and-intuitions-yes/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 20:46:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266108705592008706
Mar 20, 2020, 2:44 PM People break down into three categories because that’s the hierarchy of cognitive development:
Physical movement > Feel(pre-conscious) > Intuit(conscious) > Think(rational).
The question is why some of us develop (mature) further than others, and some less so than others. And can we train their feelings and intuitions like we train them with language, grammar, arithmetic, and basic science. The evidence is ‘yes’ but we don’t.
Mar 20, 2020, 2:44 PM People break down into three categories because that’s the hierarchy of cognitive development:
Physical movement > Feel(pre-conscious) > Intuit(conscious) > Think(rational).
The question is why some of us develop (mature) further than others, and some less so than others. And can we train their feelings and intuitions like we train them with language, grammar, arithmetic, and basic science. The evidence is ‘yes’ but we don’t.
So for Most People, for Most Uses, P Isn’t Hard. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/so-for-most-people-for-most-uses-p-isnt-hard/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 20:45:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266108387705729024
Mar 20, 2020, 6:14 PM
—“Being too complex to understand is not necessarily a badge of honor.”–Mike Harvey
Explanatory power is however a badge of honor. And complexity explains why it has taken until the 21st century to solve it. And, as Bill is trying to get across, applied P is not hard. The P Method is hard, but so is writing the law. The majority of questions are solved by the test of Reciprocity. The hard questions are solved by Testimony – which is reciprocity applied to truth claims. The rest is just understanding WHY. Programming is hard (operations). Economics is hard (equilibration). Disambiguation and serialization is hard. The via negativa is hard (falsification). Abandoning intuition in favor of systemic falsification is harder. And P uses all of that.
Mar 20, 2020, 6:14 PM
—“Being too complex to understand is not necessarily a badge of honor.”–Mike Harvey
Explanatory power is however a badge of honor. And complexity explains why it has taken until the 21st century to solve it. And, as Bill is trying to get across, applied P is not hard. The P Method is hard, but so is writing the law. The majority of questions are solved by the test of Reciprocity. The hard questions are solved by Testimony – which is reciprocity applied to truth claims. The rest is just understanding WHY. Programming is hard (operations). Economics is hard (equilibration). Disambiguation and serialization is hard. The via negativa is hard (falsification). Abandoning intuition in favor of systemic falsification is harder. And P uses all of that.
Constitution as A Religious Quasi-Christian Document Delivered by Providence https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/constitution-as-a-religious-quasi-christian-document-delivered-by-providence/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 20:39:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266106853718712320
The Nuance of Improved Inputs https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/the-nuance-of-improved-inputs/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 20:37:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266106306747944960
Mar 22, 2020, 1:42 AM by Luke Weinhagen P often looks like a competing interpretation of philosophy or a competing ideology. When what is really offers is fidelity and disambiguity to the underlying concepts of all philosophy and ideology (at differing costs to each). In the case of UPB this clarity comes from discovery of a superior definition of property. In the case of NAP this clarity comes in the form of identification of full-accounting. So, counter-reaction is usually misaligned nuance I think. The nuance is in being able to see these simply as improved inputs and not as just making the original work wrong.