http://www.moreright.net/preferences-for-redistribution/Three great articles on our ignorance and preferences for redistribution
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-18 11:45:00 UTC
http://www.moreright.net/preferences-for-redistribution/Three great articles on our ignorance and preferences for redistribution
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-18 11:45:00 UTC
http://www.aei.org/publication/china-will-likely-never-get-rich-and-what-that-means-for-america/Very very very smart.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-18 11:38:00 UTC
http://www.xenosystems.net/quote-note-169/—“Alone among major powers, the United States has not professionalized its diplomacy” with disastrous consequences,—
Fukuyama agrees.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-18 11:21:00 UTC
Todd Colby used to find amusement in jerking my autistic chain. He called it “putting a quarter in”. After a bit he would start laughing. I am so Damned gullible that I fall for it every time.
Got hooked hard by Michael Philip today. Damn. Got hooked a while back by the incremental suppression thing.
Knowing you are an aspie is really quite liberating. It sucked as a kid not to get it.
I still don’t get a lot of humor other than irony even though I work at it. But I have learned to enjoy a lot of it.
Humans are awesome. 🙂
Aspieness is awesome really once you learn to laugh at yourself. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-18 10:31:00 UTC
FAME AND INTELLECTUAL INCENTIVES
We gain fame by inventing new tools.
We do not gain fame by inventing new prohibitions.
Maybe no one invented Propertarianism and Testimonialism before, because the central problems they faced were advancement of utility rather than constraint of falsehoods.
You can see Hibert didn’t understand his own arguments.
He doesn’t help us expand the knowledge of mathematics, he just tells us how to ensure that we haven’t erred.
But you know, the 20th century has a lot of pseudoscientific
If math is no longer correspondent, it is just a language game.
Or stated, if math is not used in measurement it is just a puzzle, not a problem.
While I am trying to create rule of law for heterogeneous polities, I am doing so largely by prohibiting falsehoods. The central problem we face today, is the conflict between authoritarian leftism of diverse polities, and egalitarian libertarianism of homogenous polities. Just as the enlightenment problem was one between the authoritarian state-church mysticism, and the egalitarian rational emergent middle classes. Just as the late roman problem was one between the totalitarian christians of the eastern empire, and the egalitarian stoics and pagans of the western empire. Just as between the establishment and the philosophers in athens. This battle seems never to end.
I have a vision of a future where Testimonialism is so fully integrated into our language, that the transformation from our current language is as monumental the transformations from mystical, to religious, to rational, probabilistic, and to scientific language.
At that point, no one remembers (or cares about) the invention of Testimonialism and Propertarianism. They live it every day. They care only about the constitution that makes government of a heterogeneous population possible.
If a man has a reason to not be remembered, I would love to not be remembered for that reason.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-18 09:01:00 UTC
REJECTION 😉
(the guys locked me out of the office. I am ‘stuck’ in a cafe. but I am writing about accounting finally. lol how to manage the boss in one easy lesson.)
lol
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-18 07:40:00 UTC
NUTSHELL: SOCIAL ORDERS
As far as I know, the traditional family is the optimum association of kin for the purpose of reproduction and production.
As far as I know, only the Absolute nuclear family could evolve total suppression of parasitism.
As far as I know, nothing prevents the total suppression of parasitism (high trust) while at the same time advocating the traditional family.
Law must be constructed for individuals, but policy can easily be constructed for families.
But this means that the quality of one’s family influences one’s life.
So the underclass want to be free of their family constraints.
And to parasitically consume the better families as a reproductive strategy: to reduce the competition of good genes, by expanding the production of bad genes.
As far as I know the only substantive differences between groups are in the distribution of intellectual biases, intellectual capabilities and aggression.
As far as I know the reason groups defeat other groups is that they increase the rates of reproduction of either their underclasses and expand territorially, or they decrease the rates of reproduction of their underclasses and expand economically and intellectually.
So we can choose between equalitarian poverty (islam), poverty and castes (india/brazil), hierarchy and totalitarianism (china), or egalitarianism and aristocracy (old northern europe).
The question is only whether we suppress the rates of reproduction of the underclasses and expand the rates of reproduction of the upper classes.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-18 05:13:00 UTC
http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/05/29/definitions-truth/UPDATED TRUTH DEFINITIONS
Added:
Intuition: (sentimental expression) – an uncritical, uncriticized, response to information that expresses a measure of existing biases (priors).
Preference (rational expression) : a justification of one’s biases (wants).
Opinion: (justificationism) – a justified uncritical statement given the limits of one’s knowledge about external questions.
Position: (criticism) – a theoretical statement that survives one’s available criticisms about external questions.
Demonstrated Preference: – Evidence of intuition, preference, opinion, and position as demonstrated by your actions, independent of your statements.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-18 04:55:00 UTC
STATES LIE AND TEACH US TO LIE
(profound)(at least for me)
The more I work on the subject of truth, the more I respect our anglo, north sea, and greek ancestors for just how close they were to truth: they were a very scientific civilization.
And conversely, the more I work on the subject of truth, the more I am convinced that it is because government never really evolved to organized large-scale production, with a need to justify falsehoods as ‘good’.
The State and State-Production, Propaganda, and Deceit are all interdependent technologies. Whereas partnerships, familial production, the jury, and truth-telling are all interdependent technologies.
States lie and teach us to lie.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-18 02:09:00 UTC
TECHNIQUE: JUSTIFICATION (MORAL) AND CRITICISM (AMORAL)
You can Justify your statements (as moral) if I trust you, and Criticize your statements (as scientific) if I don’t – or more importantly, if I cannot. Or worse, if it is not a matter of honesty but a matter of error and bias.
A jury cannot tell the truth of things, it can only determine if you acted rationally given the information at your disposal (operational test of believability of testimony given one’s of incentives), and whether your testimony corresponds with the testimony of others.
The intellectual disciplines, whether hard science or lacking hard science, all operate by the same process: testimony (publishing).
Justification (positive tests) evolved out of moral justification: adherence to norms and rules and assumptions.
Criticism (negative tests) evolved out of scientific criticism: tests of the limits of norms, rules and assumptions.
Justification is understandable for those things at human scale that we can sympathetically test by experience, and Criticism is necessary for those things we cannot sympathetically test, are not at human scale, and we cannot sympathetically test by experience.
This is because in matters of morals and norms we are chiefly looking for malfeasance: deceit.
And in matters of science we are chiefly looking for error and cognitive bias.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-18 02:02:00 UTC