MILITIA: A distributed dictatorship of sovereign men.
That’s the secret. That’s the magic. Sovereignty requires a militia in reciprocal contract of mutual insurance under natural law. The consequence of sovereign reciprocally insuring militia under natural law of reciprocity is markets in everything. The result of markets in everything is the institutional production of agency, and through agency transcendence of man.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 15:05:00 UTC
THERE IS ONLY ONE METHOD OF OPTING-IN
by Lorenz Fiorenza
—“We only opt-in through participation in the militia and the revolution. The system can’t be reformed. If the militia is a sword that forges itself, then it is up to the discretion of the militia to choose what leader they give their sword to. It is a gamble and there is no 100% likelihood of benevolence- Washington could have contracted syphilis and gone mad despite pure intent. The question is, will a world of monarchies be inevitable due to the long-term institutions needed for managing the domestication and transcendence of man?”—
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 15:03:00 UTC
PLEASE TRY TO BE SMARTER ABOUT APPLIED MATHEMATICS THAN I AM. IT’S EASY. I AM GLAD PEOPLE DO THAT SO I DON”T HAVE TO. BUT DO NOT TRY TO BE SMARTER ABOUT THE FOUNDATIONS OF MATH (OR TRUTH) THAN I AM. OK?
> Curt Doolittle :
A priori consist of trivial examples of hypotheses. The deductive consist of trivial examples of the a priori.
There exists only one epistemic method:
observation > free association > wayfinding > hypothesis > self criticism > theory > market criticism > law.
The non-contradictory, the a priori and the deductive are simply trivial cases.
===
>Robert Mosimann :
If such a simplistic view of the a priori and epistemic methods were true then
Provide the observational evidence to establish the axioms of mathematics such as
The axiom of infinity
The Power set axiom
The Generalized Continuum Hypothesis.
How about the law of Contradiction itself
Etc
Only someone not knowing much science or mathematics would consider the a priori and deductive cases to be trivial.
====
Curt Doolittle:
You’re kidding me.
Let’s just take the first one.
“I promise that I observe that the method of constructing positional names that we commonly refer to as ‘natural numbers’, can be performed without limit, other than practical limit, and as such I can deduce that at least that single set of positional names satisfies the criteria of limitlessness independent of applied context that we commonly represent with the symbol *infinity*.”
Ergo: “I can truthfully claim, as a general rule of scale independence – meaning that by removing the dimensions of time, space, operations, and cost, at least one condition of infinity is possible.”
This is a trivial observation.
The Continuum Hypothesis is the most interesting because it’s stated pseudo-scientifically and appears profound. But if stated scientifically (meaning informationally complete) then it’s also trivial:
“I promise that I observe that the method of constructing position names beginning with the natural numbers all ratios thereof, that the rate of production of some positional names (numbers) will vary per operation.”
Or the law of contradiction.
“I promise that I observe that when I name a set of properties, relations, and values (category), that if I refer to (testify) a different set of properties, relations and values(category) by the same name I engage in either error or deception (falsehood).”
These are trivial statements dressed upon pseudo-scientific garb, because of the remnants of archaic platonism in the field.
The foundation of mathematics is trivial: correspondence and non-correspondence. Dimensions included, or dimensions ignored. The only challenge in mathematics is in applied math: like chess, the learning of observable patterns of transformations.
Each dimension of reality we can speak of (identity, logical, empirical, operational(existential), rational, reciprocal, and fully accounted), and each dimension of constant relations (mathematics) we can speak of (identity, number(name), arithmetic(quantity), geometry(space), calculus(motion), and algebraic geometry (pure relations), can only be tested (proved) by appeal to the subsequent dimension. (No system of logic can prove itself). Hence the necessity of axiom of choice..
Anyway. If there is anyone living who understands these matters better than I do, I would love to know. But as far as I know, there isn’t.
Cheers.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 14:53:00 UTC
A COMMON DECEPTION VIA FRAMING
What is the best for humanity: rule of law under natural law – meaning non discretionary rule, or one of the variants of discretionary rule: Authoritarian Martial/Fascism, Authoritarian Oligarchical/Liberalism, Authoritarian Syndicate/Social(ism) Democracy, Authoritarian Underclass/Communism?
I mean. If you ask the question honestly, in operational language, then the answer is pretty obvious. The best rule is by NO ONE but rule of law.
The question becomes, how then do we construct commons when no one can rule?
The answer looks increasingly like the swiss model.
However, that’s assuming you can get rid of the underclasses that destroy any hope of ‘doing what is good for humanity’.
And that’s the dirty problem of all political systems.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 13:51:00 UTC
GROUP: LOYALTY AND BETRAYAL
The central problem for any group, of any size, is to maximize all opportunities with positive externalities (loyalty) without tolerating the taking of opportunities with negative externalities (defection). Loyalty matters. There is always a limit to opportunism – in everything: trade, marriage, mating. And this is what corporatism licenses: defection (betrayal). Low trust peoples profit best when they can live among high trust peoples and exploit the difficulty of measuring betrayals through moral hazard internally, and defection and betrayal externally. Liberty, free trade, globalism. These are all terms for licensing betrayal. And maybe that is surprising. These three words propose moral falsehoods in order to betray the group. Rule of Law by Natural Law with Full Accounting leads to the same conditions as liberty, free trade, and globalism, but it forbids negative externalities against the group no matter how small. The question has never been what form of government do we need in order to construct a condition free of impositions upon us by others. That form of government is Nomocracy: Rule of Law under Natural Law. Every other form of government is just some other method of condoning one form of betrayal of the group or another.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 13:00:00 UTC
( Thanks for tolerating the hyper-posting lately. I’m working on the ‘Constitution’ and solving Religion allowed me to finish with Education. So thanks for letting me work through the issue. )
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 12:37:00 UTC
YOU CAN’T FIX STUPID
—No but you have a real penchant for wordplay and putting words in peoples mouths to evade criticism— Jordan Kert
Well, there is True criticism and False criticism, expression of ignorance, and mere expression of dissatisfaction masquerading as criticism.
So here is the deal. (dipshit) There is nothing I propose that is not in the law and has not been practiced by the law for thousands of years. what I have done is increase the precision of that form of law we call tort, and specifically that subset of tort we call ‘fraud’, just as many other generations before me have increased that precision.
The law operates by protocols: processes. Hence the term “Due Process Of Law”.
Try not to be ignorant and stupid. Although, if there were no ignorant and stupid people I would have fewer excuses to explain solutions to intelligent but merely ignorant people.
I have pity for the stupid. I do not have pity for the stupid’s evasion of dunning kruger.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 12:33:00 UTC
What’s the equivalent of Walmart in Europe? Where do you go to see ‘the bottom fish’?
Um. Let me ask it differently. In the states we have sites where people post ‘walmart photos’, which means the underclass captured being underclass in the wild.
Are there any ‘underclass attractors’ or equivalent shops where people take equivalent photos?
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 05:37:00 UTC
We are not trending toward less violence.
There are just fewer incentives to use it.
That’s because the forms of property we can steal are no longer primarily physical.
And that is why we steal by other means.
Government, the Priesthood, The Academy, and the Financial Sector are the best methods of stealing ever invented.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 05:24:00 UTC
OUR COMPATIBILITY
Women signaling with virtue-talk and men signaling with trash-talk. Women shaming as if their approval mattered, and men threatening is if their disapproval mattered.
We are perfectly compatible. All sound and fury, signifying nothing. With the occasional outlying compromises seized and quickly consumed before the ape-chatter starts anew.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-17 19:59:00 UTC