Um. I know that if you are sensitive to the gender issue, it’s hard to see my underlying strategy, but I’m saying we all MUST trade. Because if we don’t trade the option is women prey upon men, or men prey upon women. In that choice, men will always prey upon women.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-06 16:52:00 UTC
if you have rule of law for everyone (defensive governance) but minority rule of the commons, you will get less politicking.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-06 16:44:00 UTC
PRESENTING PROPERTARIANISM
by Ivan Ilakovac
You should present your work as a TECHNOLOGY for the construction of commons using Propertarianism, Testimonialism, and Algorithmic Natural Law.
Present it as a neutral technology – like the violence on which it depends. Demonstrate how to rule with minority, majority and totality. Let the thousand flowers bloom.
In that way, you will divide yourself from fringe – they don’t care about descriptive science, but for the decidability no matter the truth.
Don’t give them any decisions, only descriptions of that which empirically works: aristocracy, republic and democracy — under the Natural Law.
Law attracts aristocratic egalitarians due to the combination of force, creativity and wisdom it demands.
Descriptions are for people like me who want to learn and change their own family, kin, and nation ruled by Natural Law, with different government for each nation.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-06 16:42:00 UTC
by John Stephens
The Dunning Krueger effect, combined with the unholy trinity of:
… 1) Cognitive Dissonance,
… 2) Confirmation Bias, and
… 3) Motivated Reasoning;
– is devastating. Especially Motivated reasoning.
When someone has the natural tendency to question authority, or are heavily biased to feel Anti-authority, they find it much easier to accept the alternative narratives as truth without giving it the same scrutiny as the authority’s narratives.
I readily admit that one of the hardest things I have ever had to learn to do is to let go of my biases. As someone who questions everything and everyone, learning to put my own stances and beliefs through that same scrutiny as I do with others, is extremely difficult. But it is as important and necessary as anything I have learned.
I go so far as to reject it outright if I find agreement at first, until after failing to formulate arguments against. I then have no choice but to accept it.
That is why it is taking me so long to get through even the basics of Propertarianism. Since it spoke to me at the first reading, I have had to reject it until I couldn’t.
That, and that there are only so many hours in a day.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-06 16:38:00 UTC
THINKING:
Ok. So, attacking and falsifying my own possible desire for unnecessary monopoly, one can create a natural law nomocracy with a minority, majority, or homogenous population.
1) An Aristocratic Minority (a Caste) – Military, Judiciary, Sheriffs
2) A Republican Majority(a Polity) – Add Banking and Industry
3) A Democratic Monopoly (a People) – Add labor and svcs.
Let’s say you take a caste of people, like the spartans, and specialize in rule. If that rule is by natural law, and produces commons for both rulers and ruled, I think that’s a great arrangement. You might call this fascism, but you might actually have a population ‘hire’ you to rule them for their own good.
Let’s say you take a set of aristocratic families and their relations constituting either a sizable minority or a majority, and rule by natural law and produce commons that the nobility and the propertied classes choose to. You might all this oligarchy, but it certainly appears to be the most successful model on earth.
Let’s say you take a whole population set up an hereditary monarchy, a regional nobility, professional administration(private not public) and a market for the commons where all classes have virtual houses that can produce commons through trade.
I mean, you can implement Natural Law (Nomocracy) via Aristocracy, Republic, or Democracy, with minority, majority, totality (homogenous), by starting with a monarchy, adding a senate, adding houses for the classes with levels of enfranchisement depending upon whom you do and do not want to include.
So is that all I need to produce? And, why do we need a homogenous polity? I mean, arguably demand-for-enfranchisement is actually a bad thing?
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-06 15:44:00 UTC
—“I think this whole style of using social media as a sketch pad and bouncing ideas, and getting into constructive debate with others is an ingenious way to approach a work of the scope that you intend on putting out.”— John R. Abel
(some experiments work. 😉 )
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-06 14:44:00 UTC
( Oh. FWIW: I consider myself a scientist of testimonial speech – truthful speech. The fact that I use the term philosophy is largely so that I can debunk it as consisting almost entirely of fictionalisms. *Never let an enemy leave the field alive.* )
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-06 14:22:00 UTC
Do you have any idea how happy it makes me that I can quote so many of you? omg…
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-06 14:18:00 UTC
Domagoj Vaci: pronunciation help pls: Is the j =zh and c=ch, or or the soft y and s, or the hard consonants of j and k? (thanks)
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-06 14:14:00 UTC
—“Pythagoras was a mystic who took his cues from Egypt and Heraclitus was a dissatisfied Aristocrat who worshiped fire, just like Zoroastrian priesthood. I guess we can consider them odd ducks in this development.”—Domagoj Vaci
(worth repeating)
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-06 14:11:00 UTC