Source: Facebook

THE EDUCATION OF SLOAN HENRY

Um … Let me help you sweetie, and your little dog (“Bernard”) too…

(**a reference to the wizard of oz… lol)

https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156364687907264

https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156362084622264

https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156361965212264

https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156355447672264

1) “Bernard” proposed a complete argument that suggested what people would do. I demonstrated it is contrary to evidence, incentive and logic. His proposition was that groups would tolerate fractionalization of the law, when the evidence is that the opposite is true: all groups converge on reciprocity and actively exterminate, prosecute, and suppress all of those that don’t (the example being conquest, secession attempts, piracy, black markets). There is no evidence elsewhere other than law (example being licensing piracy as private funding of warfare.)

2) “Bernard” presented a series of opposition movements against reciprocity (communist, socialist, anarchist), as evidence of its failure – despite none of those ideas surviving in the market for polities. But he did not state the opposite, which is the vast literature and record of the use of reciprocity in all civilizations across all time periods, in all bodies of law, and the use of law to continuously converge on reciprocity as the scale of cooperation increases. (The origin of the term liberty is in the right of a locality to preserve local laws in some cases, despite rule by a state or empire seeking to homogenize trade, because trade requires reciprocity to exist, and the more trade the more taxes/income from imposing reciprocity.)

3) “Bernard” proposed a series of arguments that relied upon individual agreement with the results of the test of reciprocity – rather than reciprocity was both decidable (consistent across the logical, empirical, and incentives), and necessary for any group that an cooperate. In other words he attempted to suggest that the meaning of ‘moral’ was that which one agreed with rather than the Nash equilibrium of what a group needs for survival, and the only incentive the strong have for letting the undesirable exist. The fact that his ‘logic’ is illogical doesn’t seem to occur to him – that an individuals actions alone are amoral, and it’s only when we resolve conflicts that actions can be judged immoral, amoral, or moral. And it’s only for the resolution of disputes in groups for the purpose of preserving cooperation that morality is even a question.

4) I presented “Bernard” with a series of questions that would allow one to falsify reciprocity as a test of morality (ethics, criminality, tolerance for existence), and he avoided them at every opportunity. In other words, I presented the criteria for falsification and he circumvented it repeatedly.

5) “Bernard” (much like you) responded with (Jewish Pillpul, Rousseuian/Kantian, Marxist, Feminist, Postmodern) critique, which includes the techniques of straw manning (as he did in 1 above), cherry picking (as he did in 3 above, correspondence (as he did in 3) above, avoidance of the central argument (as he did in 4) above, and the use of disapproval, shaming, psychologizing, ad hom, gossip, rallying). He did not manage or need to rely on ‘heaping undue praise’, which is the other common technique, or appeal to pseudoscience or mysticism). But otherwise, “Bernard” used textbook Pilpul (critique) to avoid answering the central question: are all conflicts decidable under tests of reciprocity and are all oppositions to reciprocity attempts at theft (free-riding, parasitism, predation)? I mean its not an opinion. It’s simply physics. Did you expend time energy and resources in the investment in the production of a good, service, institution, or information (Property), and did another consume, damage, or impede it (Theft).

As far as I know, neither the rationality of choice or the morality of reciprocity is possible to falsify. All choices are rational given full accounting of the inputs (costs), and all questions of conflict are decidable given a full accounting of the inputs (investments).

I mean. There are no known arguments against this reasoning that I know of. Every defense is merely a restatement of rationality and reciprocity(productivity) or it’s avoidance(parasitism).

You know, it’s not like he engaged in intellectually honest or even rational discourse. He just used the technique invented by women to rally against dominant males, which was formalized in jewish law: Pilpul, and formalized into jewish, christian, and islamic religions: lie, and pay the cost of membership by preserving the lie. Then the empirical enlightenment came about which overthrew the jewish counter-revolution against truth, and we saw Rousseau/Kant, then Marx,Boas,Freud,Adorno+company, Mises/Rothbard/Rand, Lenin/ Trotsky/Strauss, and finally Derrida/Rorty, all work from pseudo-rationalism, through pseudoscience, through pseudolegalism, through outright denialism and the industrialization of lying.

Truth is unkind to those with low Genetic Market Value: the resulting sexual, reproductive, social, economic, political, and military market values. Truth is unkind to lies. Truth is unkind in general. It is however extraordinarily powerful for those who have at least the minimum Genetic Market Value. And that is why those of us with at least the minimum Genetic Market Value use Truth and the power it gives us to suppress, prosecute, and exterminate those who seek survival by theft rather than reciprocity.

We have to. Evolution demands it of us. And the universe is nothing but an opportunity for those of us with High Genetic Market Value to convert into Eden.