Source: Facebook

  • Untitled

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=advhsWr3B8w

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-21 06:24:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-21 06:09:00 UTC

  • SKIN IN THE GAME What is the difference between “I promise”and “i warranty”? “I

    SKIN IN THE GAME

    What is the difference between “I promise”and “i warranty”?

    “I promise” is a moral warranty. “I warranty” is a material warranty.

    Skin in the game.

    Testimonialism places skin in the game.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-21 06:08:00 UTC

  • WHAT AMOUNTS TO SAYING “GOOD MORNING” AT THE OFFICE (Vitalii enters) Vitalii : “

    WHAT AMOUNTS TO SAYING “GOOD MORNING” AT THE OFFICE

    (Vitalii enters)

    Vitalii : ” I fixed that resizing bug “

    Curt: ” there has to be a joke about size in there somewhere”

    Vitallii: (chuckles)

    Curt: “You are a god among men.” (for having fixed the bug)

    Curt: (thinking in his internal voice) “Or, at least, I hear that I your wife says ‘Oh God!, Oh God!’ to you a lot.” (Curt chooses to remain silent because his wife is in the office also.)

    (Enter Alexey)

    Curt: “Good morning. Oh. By the way. We are sharing. Vitalii was sick and shared it with me. Then I was sick and I shared it with Kirill. Today Kirill is sick. We are all sharing like our mothers taught us to.”

    Alexey: “Did you all have sex together?”

    (laughter)

    Curt: “Well since Vikka is here I was avoiding taking the conversation across that line. Thanks for opening the door for me.

    Vikka: (looks up over the top of her monitor – skeptically).

    (She never takes us seriously. We are men. We are not to be taken seriously.)


    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-21 04:06:00 UTC

  • Western theory was blank other than Hegel. Rothbard, by being partly right and m

    Western theory was blank other than Hegel. Rothbard, by being partly right and mostly wrong, gave me something to work from. It worked.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-21 01:52:00 UTC

  • IS WORTH RE-POSTING. One of the more important ideas in Propertarianism. Propert

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBNg4NpDTxMTHIS IS WORTH RE-POSTING.

    One of the more important ideas in Propertarianism.

    Propertarianism is a descriptive ethics with which all political orders and all ethical systems are amorally comparable and objectively testable.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 13:53:00 UTC

  • JUSTIFICATIONISM VS TESTIMONIALISM Moral Permission vs Prohibition on Falsehoods

    JUSTIFICATIONISM VS TESTIMONIALISM

    Moral Permission vs Prohibition on Falsehoods.

    Justification is a normative and Positive activity

    —“One way of explaining the theory of justification is to say that a justified belief is one that we are “within our rights” in holding. The rights in question are neither political nor moral, however, but intellectual.

    In some way, each of us is responsible for what we believe. Beliefs are not typically formed completely at random, and thus we have an intellectual responsibility, or obligation, to try to believe what is true and to avoid believing what is false. An intellectually responsible act is within one’s intellectual rights in believing something; performing it, one is justified in one’s belief.

    Thus, justification is a normative notion. The standard definition is that a concept is normative if it is a concept regarding or depending on the norms, or obligations and permissions (very broadly construed), involved in human conduct. It is generally accepted that the concept of justification is normative, because it is defined as a concept regarding the norms of belief.”—

    Testimonialism (“Complete” Critical Rationalism) Is a Descriptive and Negative Activity.

    Instead of justifying why we have the right to believe something, we warranty that we have done due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception.

    Through history we have asked people to warranty their honest, but not their truthfulness. This is becuase we did not know until very recently if not the past few years, how to warranty our speech as truthful. Now that we do, we can. Just as we incrementally suppressed violence, theft, fraud, conspiracy, rent seeking, and various other forms of parasitism, why cannot we now increase the cost upon individuals to refrain from damage to the informational commons?

    This places a higher burden on members of a debate to refrain from engaging in fallacies, and holds people materially acceptable for doing so.

    Thus we have free truthful speech, but not free deceitful, wishful, biased, or erroneous speech.

    Just as we may use air, water, land, roads, parks and public buildings, we must take care not to damage it for others. We may not damage information either. Information is a commons. Why is it that we do not place the burden of truthfulness on those who would wish to make use of it?


    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 13:34:00 UTC

  • QUOTE OF THE DAY “Harvard is a hedge fund with a university attached to it.” -Jo

    QUOTE OF THE DAY

    “Harvard is a hedge fund with a university attached to it.”

    -Jordan Weissman, Slate


    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 10:17:00 UTC

  • Q&A: IS INCREMENTAL SUPPRESSION OF PARASITISM THE ONLY CRITERIA FOR LAW? –“I’ve

    Q&A: IS INCREMENTAL SUPPRESSION OF PARASITISM THE ONLY CRITERIA FOR LAW?

    –“I’ve read your articles on incremental suppression of parasitism. Is that the only way law evolves in your formulation? “—

    I cannot think of any other reason for LAW to evolve, even though I can think of many reasons why alternative CONTRACTS would evolve.

    So when you are referring to the term ‘law’, I suspect you use the common convention of conflating discovered law, legislative command, legislative contract, and regulatory law into a single category of ‘that which must be obeyed’.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 09:41:00 UTC

  • Q&A: WHAT IS THE POINT OF POLYCENTRIC LAW? –“I don’t think most polycentrists c

    Q&A: WHAT IS THE POINT OF POLYCENTRIC LAW?

    –“I don’t think most polycentrists claim that polycentric law would be conflicting or arbitrary, not much more than it already is, certainly not to the degree that it would be rendered undecidable.”—

    Well, first, just to point out the obvious, then what is the point of it? Emotional satisfaction? The common law is already polycentric. In the sense that it evolves through every single judgement, and can be appealed on the basis of erroneous judicial judgement (not on the facts, but on the application of law).

    The question facing libertarians is that polycentrisim is a convenient intellectual distraction from having failed to determine a necessary and sufficient means upon which to construct law.

    Now I know enough cosmopolitan philosophy to know that this is the central strategy of cosmopolitan authors and their jewish predecessors: to state a half truth in order to allow subjective judgement to survive.

    I have only begun my work on their strategy of deception through suggestion but I see it as not terribly helpful to my cause. So I haven’t taken it far enough.

    Operationalism eliminates the tactic so that its no longer possible. I am more interested in the solution (operationalism and testimonialism) than I am in criticizing the group evolutionary strategy of the jewish enlightenment.

    Hence why I focus on solutions rather than criticisms.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 09:41:00 UTC