Source: Facebook

  • TODAY’S CLASS: “CONSTANT RELATIONS” OK. So lets try this. “Constant Relations”.

    TODAY’S CLASS: “CONSTANT RELATIONS”

    OK. So lets try this. “Constant Relations”.

    (And for super geeks watch what I do to logic and set theory with operationalism.)

    1) Now, what is the difference between “differences” and “constant and inconstant relations”?

    a) So neurons can identify that which is the same, that which is different and can accumulate these differences, as more correspondent or less correspondent, right?

    2) When we say “nothing” what CAN we refer to?

    Neil: “Everything”.

    Curt: “Correct, when we say ‘nothing’ we can only mean everything, and we have not selected from everything.”


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 15:39:00 UTC

  • Libertarian ethics derive from hebrew diasporic pastoralist ethics (those than c

    Libertarian ethics derive from hebrew diasporic pastoralist ethics (those than can run away) whereas western sovereign ethics derive from western indo european agrarian militia ethics (those that remain present) – which is a difference between the short term temporal and longer term intertemporal. which is why libertarian ethics lare limited to volition, not like western,inclusive of reciprocity. In other words, under western indo european ethics you warranty your words and deeds, whereas hebrew ethics are designed to be irreciprocal, and without warranty on purpose – as is stated in jewish law. Otherwise, if you don’t follow ethics of warranty, and instead if you follow jewish ethics, then there is no prohibition on creating and profiting from moral hazard (parasitism). And so if they follow irreciprocal ethics a group can specialize in profiting from moral hazard (parasitism), like lending usurious money to poor people, engaging in the slave trade, blackmail, slumlording and tax collection. Whereas moral peoples specialize in the lower returns on warrantable and reciprocal goods that do not create incentive to retaliate (kill). WHich is why jews in Europe had such a problem, (and had population bottlenecks). A low trust immoral parasitic population hosted by a high trust moral productive population will always lead to accumulated grievances and explosive retaliation. But, none of us can look i the mirror at our ancestors and recognize them for their criminality – although westerners since Burke certainly have done so. Most other civilizations lack the intellectual honesty to look in the mirror at their ancestors and understand that their punishments were earned. In the case of the west our adoption of christianity demilitarized and fragmented europe to the point where it was the viking invasions that restored the western ethos, and the reintroduction of greek thought that lead to it’s return to it’s traditional vector after the damage of the abrahamic dark ages.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 15:26:00 UTC

  • The roman empire consisted of the The Roman (western mediterranean), and rome’s

    The roman empire consisted of the The Roman (western mediterranean), and rome’s conquest of the Greek Empire (Aegean), Greek-Conquered Egypt, and Anatolia, Roman conquered Syria, Palestine, and north africa.

    The greek (eastern empire) survived, but the west was lost to jewish internal insurrection and germanian external conquest, and the rest incrementally lost to judaism v3, the muslim conquests, which destroyed every great civilization of the ancient world.

    So the eastern empire was roman in name the same way the holy roman empire was roman (neither was).


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 15:06:00 UTC

  • SELF OWNERSHIP CAN’T EXIST IT MUST BE CONSTRUCTED FROM A COMMONS. Well, self own

    SELF OWNERSHIP CAN’T EXIST IT MUST BE CONSTRUCTED FROM A COMMONS.

    Well, self ownership can’t exist, it can only be constructed as an informal institution(norm) or formal institution( legislation).

    So you can desire to construct a thing, and once you construct a thing, use that thing to produce goods, but it does not exist independently of construction – it’s impossible.

    The reason to use the word principle is always and everywhere a fraud – an attempt to attribute to law (existential) or axiom (declaration) that which is arbitrary. Any time a person uses ‘principle’ they mean arbitrary. Any time they use natural or physical law they mean inescapable, and any time the use axiom they mean ‘declared’ since we can declare any axion (premise) arbitrarily. So all attempst to argue from principle are arbitrary (false).

    Recirpocity provides decidability whether we like it or not, and that is why it is the bases of all law, and in particular, international law – since there is no means of enforcing international law other than war.

    So once you choose reciprocity, whether empirically or arbitrarily you will end up producing the institutions of possession, property(normative), and property rights (institutional).

    And once you follow me long enough you will understand the technique called ‘pilpul’ by which the ignorant are fooled into cherry picking a set of self confirming excuses, and hence why all justificationism (like numerology, and astrology, and scriptural interpretation, and rationalist philosophy that evolved from them) as a hierarchy of elaborate frauds.

    So no. We must construct a condition of reciprocity (commons) via informal and formal institutions, from which we incrementally produce the institutions of property and property rights, and possibly even the luxury of human rights.

    And that is how property evolved – as a luxury of the incremental suppression of free riding , theft, fraud, and conspiracy.

    And libertarianism is just another excuse for free riding.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 14:41:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 14:09:00 UTC

  • Yes scale increases selection influence and decreases drift influence and hence

    Yes scale increases selection influence and decreases drift influence and hence speciation is possible TO CONTROL.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 14:00:00 UTC

  • GENGHIS KHAN VS CRUSOE What provides genghis kahn with the incentive to (a) let

    GENGHIS KHAN VS CRUSOE

    What provides genghis kahn with the incentive to (a) let you live, (b) keep your things (c) let you remain free of slavery (d) Let you keep a portion of your production?

    It’s the inverse of the Crusoe’s Island thought experiment.

    Historically, the model that we evolved with, is an evenly distributed but scarce population preying on one another to obtain territory, women, and goods.

    How do you develop mutually beneficial cooperation in the historical (existential) rather than pessimistic (Kahn) or optimistic (Crusoe) models?

    Genghis Khan <———- Steppe ———> Crusoe


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 13:43:00 UTC

  • Yeah, well, you know, marxism, libertarianism, neo conservatism all originate wi

    Yeah, well, you know, marxism, libertarianism, neo conservatism all originate with the same methods of arguments, and same value system and same strategy, except written to ‘motivate’ three different classes.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 13:41:00 UTC

  • KEY TO UNDERSTANDING PROPERTARIANISM by Luke Weinhagen Understanding this: —-“

    KEY TO UNDERSTANDING PROPERTARIANISM

    by Luke Weinhagen

    Understanding this:

    —-“There exist only three possible relations (avoidance, cooperation, conflict).”—-

    … and developing the skill to accurately identify these categories, makes everything Propertarianism is exploring understandable and in context.

    Where I’ve had misses in comprehension has consistently been where I’ve mis-categorized one or more of those three as another in whatever relation is being explored.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 13:28:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIANISM’S SELF DESTRUCTION by Luke Weinhagen (better than I have said it)

    LIBERTARIANISM’S SELF DESTRUCTION

    by Luke Weinhagen

    (better than I have said it) (brilliant)

    The way (my revelation) hit me was that libertarianism survives/exists by miscategorizing relations. Specifically libertarians interpret commons(cooperation) as commons(conflict) and use property rights(IVP) to attempt to resolve that conflict.

    In doing so they justify libertarianism’s parasitism of the commons(that can only be generated via cooperation) as defense and that justification requires it not suppress any parasitism of the commons(cooperation) as this would self destruct the ideology.

    Libertarianism self destructed for me once I recognized this categorization error.

    (CURT: Luke, this is, the … it’s, pricelessly stated. nice work.)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 13:12:00 UTC