—“Corruption by journalists, the indulgence of wishful thinking, bias, etc. are the major cause of the decline of the West since 1965. As Moldbug pointed out they’re the new clerisy, as intent on all the privilege and none of the responsibility as any fat corrupt abbot in 1788 France. You will warranty your words and give a full account of your proposals, or we will hang you. It’s that simple.”—Con Eli Khan
Source date (UTC): 2016-06-01 23:49:00 UTC
Q&A: “Curt, do you see equity courts as necessary?”
If you mean that judges should decide by two different criteria, then no. If you mean equity (various involuntary transfers) is a matter for courts, then yes.
Here is the deal: the purpose of law is to keep us in peaceful cooperation (order). But externalities differ with the subject matter at hand.
So treason, murder, theft, incompetence, error, and family matters allow for greater subjective discretion because of fewer or at least less impactful externalities.
The law, like mathematics did not evolve in an era were we possessed the language of economics and finance (equilibria).
So the law like mathematics carries archaic terminology from the religious and moral eras. Bad words make bad choices.
I usually speak in terms of information, decidability, and externality. The law does consider these things. But often refers to them oddly, and in what we might consider ‘sacred’ legal terms, with moral weights.
So I see that courts must specialize in types of cases for the simple reason that judges cannot master all domains. (Although the good judges I know say that this variability is what keeps them intellectually stimulated. But there is too much evidence that very technical subjects requires specialists.)
Whether without contract, with contract, within the social contract, and within the legislative contract, I don’t really see any difference. It’s all property rights.
Source date (UTC): 2016-06-01 09:58:00 UTC
—“How does one determine truthfulness? Or truth? Would “accurate” not be a better formulation? Can that be constructed?”—- Arthur K
One cannot knowingly speak the most parsimonious truth possible.
One can however perform such thorough due diligence that he can warranty that he speaks truthfully: meaning diligently free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit.
One can perform the following tests of due diligence, any of which can falsify his ideas:
1) categorical consistency (Identity)
2) internal consistency (logical)
3) external consistency (external correspondence)
4) existential consistency (operational language)
5) moral consistency (voluntary transfers)
6) full accounting
7) parsimony and limits (scope)
8) falsifiability.
If you pass all 8 of those hurdles then you speak as truthfully as is humanly (or even superhumanly) possible.
But it is quite an informative exercise to look at 100 papers or books in each discipline and ask which of these tests of due diligence is provided and which is not.
Almost everyone fails.
Truth is hard.
The question is why we permit verbal products in the informational commons and knowledge marketplace, but do not permit defective products or services in the physical commons and marketplace?
Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2016-06-01 09:32:00 UTC
Liliya: I want to lay on the beach, look that my children are playing, close my eyes, and a few minutes later do the same again. And that is all.
Curt: I want to do the same: except watch all the women who are watching the children – and that us all. :).
Women and their children. Men and their tribe.
It’s just since feminism we have to pretend we don’t own women as a group like women still own their children. We are primitive again.
Decivilization
Source date (UTC): 2016-06-01 07:05:00 UTC
Is Duterte reading you or ?
Source date (UTC): 2016-06-01 06:52:00 UTC
{Paternal, Sovereign, Meritocratic, Eugenic, Packs (K)} + {Maternal, Collective, Equalitarian, Dysgenic, Herds (R)} = Adaptive flexibility.
Source date (UTC): 2016-06-01 05:07:00 UTC
The secret to diversity is monopoly of control by a single irreplaceable minority that prevents access to political power leaving only market, artistic, and religious methods of competition. And I would argue that suppressing religions that compete with the monopoly minority is necessary, leaving only arts and markets for status signaling and wealth.
Source date (UTC): 2016-06-01 04:06:00 UTC
We have women and minorities consuming genetic capital, and the use of fiat money and financialization to consume physical capital, and democracy consuming normative capital.
Of course we feel good. We feel good on morphine, heroine, and many other drugs too. But we burn cellular capital using them also.
We feel good when we plunder anything – natural, man made, intellectual, or cellular. Because we’re wired to acquire and consume. Because we evolved under scarcity.
But we evolved out of scarcity by the simple act of accumulating capital. And we accumulated capital by producing more than we consumed.
The music played by the hamster wheel always slows and stops eventually, and there are not enough chairs to sit on.
Source date (UTC): 2016-06-01 03:40:00 UTC
WE USED MARRIAGE AND PROPERTY TO CIVILIZE BOTH GENDERS
(ponder the importance of this a bit)
***Women only DON’T reproduce dysgenically and persist poverty when we create institutions to prevent un-meritocratic reproduction as severe as those that prevent un-meritocratic consumption by male violence.***
It has been as difficult to civilize women as it has been to civilize men. And we did both largely through the institution of marriage, property, and the common law, and aggressively persecuting unmeritocratic dysgeneic reproduction as well as unmeritocratic unproductive violence.
Source date (UTC): 2016-06-01 03:27:00 UTC
If we replace majoritarian democracy with a market for commons limited by legal dissent under natural law then conservatism sells itself.
Source date (UTC): 2016-06-01 03:21:00 UTC