Oct 12, 2019, 8:18 PM Guilds limited access, all but eliminated competition and preserved quality, which prevented optimum market pricing in exchange for optimum benefit to workers – because transport costs for goods were higher than local premium prices. So it’s more of an question of eliminating labor arbitrage. Now, other issues were important in the era because tools cost quite a bit, and it prevented the privatization of these tools. And they were also like guarantees of weights and measures in that Guild members found guilty of cheating on the public would be fined or banned from the guild. One of the policies I want to enforce is right-to-repair which will drive out the cheap goods, drive up prices and durability of goods, ending the disposable, and closing our competitive difference with japan and germany.
Form: Short Note
-
We Aren’t Enemies, Not in The Least, United by Natural Law
Oct 12, 2019, 8:32 PM
—“No, neither of us advocates forcing people to believe anything. All we demand is that due diligence against error, bias and deceit be made in all speech to public (commercial, academic, political etc.). All this means for Christians is to either keep their faith a private matter or, if they feel the need to speak about matters of faith to public, to do so only as a matter of faith, with no pretense of speaking an objective truth. … We’re not enemies, not in the slightest. We just have to agree that the natural law is what unites us.”– Martin Štěpán
-
We Aren’t Enemies, Not in The Least, United by Natural Law
Oct 12, 2019, 8:32 PM
—“No, neither of us advocates forcing people to believe anything. All we demand is that due diligence against error, bias and deceit be made in all speech to public (commercial, academic, political etc.). All this means for Christians is to either keep their faith a private matter or, if they feel the need to speak about matters of faith to public, to do so only as a matter of faith, with no pretense of speaking an objective truth. … We’re not enemies, not in the slightest. We just have to agree that the natural law is what unites us.”– Martin Štěpán
-
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).
-
Un-Identical but Compatible: Religion and Natural Law
Oct 13, 2019, 10:34 AM by Martin Štěpán If your faith helps you behave according to natural law, whether your pantheon is Zeus/Jupiter and his family or Odin/Wodan and the Æsir or the Trinity, Mary and the saints, I will absolutely support it. But I’m unable to believe it even if I wanted to. Those of us significantly higher in systematizing than empathizing hardly ever can. But 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. And we both agree that our actions in this life will have consequences in the next. For believers, it might be the afterlife or reincarnation, for me, it will be the lives of my descendants, whereas I would consider each of my children half myself. Whichever you believe, or even if you believe neither, rule of law will incentivize the same behavior even without belief by ensuring that breaking the law won’t have consequences only in the next life but also in this one. Even the most extreme nihilists believe in pain. And it is the only way we can prevent ourselves from being the cause our end times and push them to the physical limits of our Universe.
-
Un-Identical but Compatible: Religion and Natural Law
Oct 13, 2019, 10:34 AM by Martin Štěpán If your faith helps you behave according to natural law, whether your pantheon is Zeus/Jupiter and his family or Odin/Wodan and the Æsir or the Trinity, Mary and the saints, I will absolutely support it. But I’m unable to believe it even if I wanted to. Those of us significantly higher in systematizing than empathizing hardly ever can. But 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. And we both agree that our actions in this life will have consequences in the next. For believers, it might be the afterlife or reincarnation, for me, it will be the lives of my descendants, whereas I would consider each of my children half myself. Whichever you believe, or even if you believe neither, rule of law will incentivize the same behavior even without belief by ensuring that breaking the law won’t have consequences only in the next life but also in this one. Even the most extreme nihilists believe in pain. And it is the only way we can prevent ourselves from being the cause our end times and push them to the physical limits of our Universe.
-
Disambiguation of Causality in Religiosity
Oct 14, 2019, 9:07 AM Three axis of Causality in Religion vs Science. 1) Intelligence, 2) Empathizing vs Systematizing. 3) Degree of familial indoctrination in Religion vs Science. So The demarcation isn’t just IQ, but IQ and the Competition between Feminine Feeling vs Masculine Thinking. I was raised very catholic it simply ‘lost’ the battle just like religion won the battle for others – and everyone else somewhere in between. Yet among they thought leaders here, most of us have a religious background and far more people than you’d think have studied religion, or considered a religious career. So I don’t see a difference in our objectives, just means of achieving the masculine or feminine distribution. And the Pagan is definitely masculine – extremely and unapologetically, and some of us ‘feel’ the masculine not the feminine. Conversely Atheism is definitely a feminine cognitive expression. So as in nearly all our differences in understanding of the world, the question of religiosity is largely genetic and less so environmental, and the genetic difference is explicable as differences in one of the only substantial variables in the human brain: gender dimorphism. — Working On This — (Female) Reactionary Atheism (preference, monopoly) -v- Resistant Agnosticism (truth, markets) (Male)
-
Disambiguation of Causality in Religiosity
Oct 14, 2019, 9:07 AM Three axis of Causality in Religion vs Science. 1) Intelligence, 2) Empathizing vs Systematizing. 3) Degree of familial indoctrination in Religion vs Science. So The demarcation isn’t just IQ, but IQ and the Competition between Feminine Feeling vs Masculine Thinking. I was raised very catholic it simply ‘lost’ the battle just like religion won the battle for others – and everyone else somewhere in between. Yet among they thought leaders here, most of us have a religious background and far more people than you’d think have studied religion, or considered a religious career. So I don’t see a difference in our objectives, just means of achieving the masculine or feminine distribution. And the Pagan is definitely masculine – extremely and unapologetically, and some of us ‘feel’ the masculine not the feminine. Conversely Atheism is definitely a feminine cognitive expression. So as in nearly all our differences in understanding of the world, the question of religiosity is largely genetic and less so environmental, and the genetic difference is explicable as differences in one of the only substantial variables in the human brain: gender dimorphism. — Working On This — (Female) Reactionary Atheism (preference, monopoly) -v- Resistant Agnosticism (truth, markets) (Male)
-
The Economics of Female Mate Selection
Oct 14, 2019, 10:12 AM Women voluntarily pair with men, (a) to defend against involuntary pairing with other men; (b)to gain access to resource and defense, (c) status (market value) largely among women, (d) to capture genes, attention and resources and keep them away from other women, (e) mates will sacrifice more than all other combined except mothers for children (ie: friendship), (f) cooperation is disproportionately more productive than all other individual actions. This produces the emotional reaction of friendship: ready access to attention and care. Our emotions evolved to inform us that these are the optimum actions. Marriage is only an optimum under property. As we can see reversing in modernity. Successful people with assets stay together. Poor without them far less so. I can explain that also but it’s not very ‘nice’.
-
The Economics of Female Mate Selection
Oct 14, 2019, 10:12 AM Women voluntarily pair with men, (a) to defend against involuntary pairing with other men; (b)to gain access to resource and defense, (c) status (market value) largely among women, (d) to capture genes, attention and resources and keep them away from other women, (e) mates will sacrifice more than all other combined except mothers for children (ie: friendship), (f) cooperation is disproportionately more productive than all other individual actions. This produces the emotional reaction of friendship: ready access to attention and care. Our emotions evolved to inform us that these are the optimum actions. Marriage is only an optimum under property. As we can see reversing in modernity. Successful people with assets stay together. Poor without them far less so. I can explain that also but it’s not very ‘nice’.