Source: Facebook

  • Yes, conservatives(empiricists) have a higher level of disgust sensitivity. Cons

    Yes, conservatives(empiricists) have a higher level of disgust sensitivity. Conservatives are the population’s means of detecting and purging harm – the white blood cells of the social order and polity. Progressives (consumptivists) have low sensitivity to disgust, but high demand for consumption, novelty, experience, and fear of being ‘left behind’.

    That does not mean that our disgust sensitivity is always right. It means that we must test whether than harm actually exists by propertarian means.

    Obviously in pedophilia it does. In homosexuality, other than keeping it out of the commons, I don’t see how it does.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-15 12:34:00 UTC

  • Yes, it is more work to speak truthfully. It is more work to produce that engage

    Yes, it is more work to speak truthfully. It is more work to produce that engage in theft, and more work to engage in theft than parasitism.

    With every increase in the incremental suppression of parasitism by ‘means I can get away with because the exchange is voluntary’ those people who create parasitism object.

    When you disagree with me all you are saying is that you want to preserve your means of parasitism, or your means of exporting costs to the commons, just like any other thief or fraud.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-15 12:28:00 UTC

  • IN DEFENSE OF THE DEMAND FOR DUE DILIGENCE IN PUBLIC SPEECH, AND THE PUNISHMENT

    IN DEFENSE OF THE DEMAND FOR DUE DILIGENCE IN PUBLIC SPEECH, AND THE PUNISHMENT OF FALSE SPEECH.

    by John Mark

    (must read) (central argument)

    1 – It is too difficult to teach Bullsh-t detection to masses of people with heavy biases and an avg IQ of 85-105 (depending on the nation). Half or more of the population (below 105-106) cannot tell what is true or not even if they try. The solution is not teaching; it won’t work. The solution is punishment. (Law)

    2 – Allowing lying allows left-instinct people to rally using lies and false promises. It’s a Dangerous thing to allow. Too dangerous.

    3 – Most people will have to refrain from making public pronouncements about matters which they have not done due diligence. This would be *wonderful*.

    4 – You only have the “rights” you & your friends can defend. If someone wants to defend their “right” to be wrong, they are fighting in favor of lies against truth. (I will not be joining that team.)

    5 – “More free speech” has failed. Because lying is faster, cheaper, easier than telling the truth. There is a world of difference between what the Left does (arbitrary, enforcing lies) & what we propose (scientific, enforcing truth). “The way most people want to live”…the left wants to pretend lies are true; the Right benefits from truth and wants the *results* of truth. The Right is better served by enforcing truth (punishing lies) than by allowing lies or “free speech” (aka lies winning).

    6 – There would be more court cases for a while and then as people figure out what the consequences of their actions will be, the # of cases will drop significantly.

    – John Mark


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-15 12:09:00 UTC

  • AGENCY AND INTENTIONALITY by Bill Joslin (important concept)(core) (comments by

    AGENCY AND INTENTIONALITY

    by Bill Joslin

    (important concept)(core) (comments by CurtD)

    Test of Agency does not require intention (i.e. it’s not a synonym for free-will).

    Agency, in the context of biological and chemistry does not imply or require intentionality. i.e. “The active agent in soap is lye”

    This might clarify why the sociological definition of Agency, that being an actor’s ability to act outside of influences of Structure, is flawed (it presumes intentionality exists as a necessary component of agency i.e. acts of free will unfettered by structure)

    My stance regarding agency is simply this:

    ***…the ability to cause an effect….***

    (CurtD: Traditional definition of power, is “the ability to alter the probability of outcomes.”)

    In this context, structural influences can be the very means by which agency emerges and increases (rather then being distinguished apart from it)

    From here: the issue we are discussing when discussing limitations to agency within a sociology context relates to other actors (individual or institutional) which act in opposition to other agents.

    Thus my definition of AUTONOMY as being free from imposition upon one’s agency BY OTHER ACTORS. (Rather then natural or structural limitations to agency).

    Intentionality remains a subset of agency in this regards. Not a necessary component.

    (CurtD: Via Positiva Agency and Via Negativa Autonomy produce market competition for action. Intention (subjective value) is not relevant to the facts of ones agency and one’s autonomy)

    For example: in law intention is not the primary means by which guilt is established. There are circumstances where intention is not relevant i.e. manslaughter, criminal neglect etc.

    (CurtD: In law we test for due diligence and liability and intent to commit a crime only tangentially. In other words we separate the TRUTH (due diligence and liability), from what is MORAL (intent).)

    So for instance, the impact on society from a low IQ cohort is not a matter of lacking agency, but rather that their aggregate agency constitutes a net negative – their combined effect being a result of their agency, regardless of intentionality or deliberateness of their actions- no agency, no effect – no intentionality yet the effect remains.

    (CurtD: people do not need to intend harm to cause harm. When they cause harm by lack of due diligence, or intent, then THEY are to blame. But if they lack the AGENCY then WE are to blame for not constraining the harm that they can do.)

    It’s is precisely because of their agency that we seek constraints. Why? Because their agency imposes upon other actors resulting in a net drain on the agency of the group as a whole…. Thus autonomy being the measure of decidability.

    Why is this important?

    Because for laws, social norms etc, we are constructing structural limitations upon agents, to constrain their effects from being damaging (regardless of whether they intend it or not).

    In other words we are addressing their agency, their ability to cause an effect – regardless of their intentional choice.

    So how do these structural constraints NOT constitute an imposition upon their agency? 1) via negativa 2) not compelled.

    You are free to break the law (act outside the constraint) but not free from the consequences. The potential to act remains un-imposed upon. This is very different than imposing upon agency to prevent the acts from taking place. I.e. compelled behaviour. Compelled behavior being a defining quality of dystopian nightmares.

    Now extrapolated this to our current situations of sin taxes, compelled speech laws, deplatforming etc. These are all forms of prescriptive application of structural constraints i.e. impositions upon agency…

    (CurtD: this is the difference between moral blame and criminal blame, and humans being what we are, conflate ‘wrongness’ of different sorts, and blame of different persons when we sense ‘wrongness’. Then as we are perpetual victims of our tendency for conflation we use terms with specific meaning (moral, lawful, truthful, logical, reasonable etc to load and frame rather than to deflate and test.)

    -Bill Joslin


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-15 11:57:00 UTC

  • WE HAVE A HIGHER STANDARD OF TRUTH —“I think this is the fatal flaw of propert

    WE HAVE A HIGHER STANDARD OF TRUTH

    —“I think this is the fatal flaw of propertarianism. It’s an unnecessary step to go this far if you already have parasite proof governance.”–Daniel

    It is not a bug or a flaw but a feature and it is by design.

    No, we have a higher standard of ‘lying’ – higher standard in that in matters of the commons you lie for having not done due diligence, not by intention.

    We are testing whether you performed due diligence, against harm, not whether you intended to harm.

    The purpose is to prevent both the originator of the lie and the propagators of the lie, just as we prevent the thief, and those who profit from the works of the thief.

    We are extending the defense of property from goods and services to information.

    This is necessary because desirable lies and harmful information spreads faster and more cheaply under industrialized distribution of information than true and beneficial information.

    And it is by desirable lies that the first abrahamic dark age of the abrahamic religions, and the Jewish, Muslim, Marxist, postmodernist, feminist, attempt to create the second abrahamic dark age, have been created, and spread – lies.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-15 11:40:00 UTC

  • ( Love you all. 😉 )

    ( Love you all. 😉 )


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-14 22:13:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/10/27/spain-has-no-government-for-10-months-economy-grows-unemployment-falls-to-18-9/#3715ee9cb62c

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-14 21:53:00 UTC

  • Gods need no gods

    Gods need no gods.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-14 12:32:00 UTC

  • IT’S ALL JUST IMPLEMENTING IT NOW. Watching the talk with Augustus Invictus and

    IT’S ALL JUST IMPLEMENTING IT NOW.

    Watching the talk with Augustus Invictus and Richard Heathen and realizing that it’s obvious to me that propertarianism is ‘COMPLETED’. I was talking to someone this morning who said “You are finished. I can see it in your eyes. you aren’t struggling to find words or means of communicating ideas any longer.” Nick said this a bit ago so I assume he noticed first. But yeah, the cake is baked. Fork in it. Complete. Ready to go. Ready for way.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-14 12:24:00 UTC

  • RELATIVE COSTS AND INCOME BALANCE OUT MAJOR DIFFERENCES IS NOT STATE BUT URBAN V

    RELATIVE COSTS AND INCOME BALANCE OUT

    MAJOR DIFFERENCES IS NOT STATE BUT URBAN VS RURAL

    Alabama

    Median household income: $44,765

    Regional price parity out of 100: 86.8

    Real income: $51,573

    Alaska

    Median household income: $73,355

    Regional price parity out of 100: 105.6

    Real income: $69,465

    Arizona

    Median household income: $51,492

    Regional price parity out of 100: 96.2

    Real income: $53,526

    Arkansas

    Median household income: $41,995

    Regional price parity out of 100: 87.4

    Real income: $48,049

    California

    Median household income: $64,500

    Regional price parity out of 100: 113.4

    Real income: $56,878

    Colorado

    Median household income: $63,909

    Regional price parity out of 100: 103.2

    Real income: $61,927

    Connecticut

    Median household income: $71,346

    Regional price parity out of 100: 108.7

    Real income: $65,636

    Delaware

    Median household income: $61,255

    Regional price parity out of 100: 100.4

    Real income: $61,011

    District of Columbia

    Median household income: $75,628

    Regional price parity out of 100: 117

    Real income: $64,639

    Florida

    Median household income: $49,426

    Regional price parity out of 100: 99.5

    Real income: $49,674

    Georgia

    Median household income: $51,244

    Regional price parity out of 100: 92.6

    Real income: $55,339

    Hawaii

    Median household income: $73,486

    Regional price parity out of 100: 118.8

    Real income: $61,857

    Idaho

    Median household income: $48,275

    Regional price parity out of 100: 93.4

    Real income: $51,686

    Illinois

    Median household income: $59,588

    Regional price parity out of 100: 99.7

    Real income: $59,767

    Indiana

    Median household income: $50,532

    Regional price parity out of 100: 90.7

    Real income: $55,713

    Iowa

    Median household income: $54,736

    Regional price parity out of 100: 90.3

    Real income: $60,616

    Kansas

    Median household income: $53,906

    Regional price parity out of 100: 90.4

    Real income: $59,631

    Kentucky

    Median household income: $45,215

    Regional price parity out of 100: 88.6

    Real income: $51,033

    Louisiana

    Median household income: $45,727

    Regional price parity out of 100: 90.6

    Real income: $50,471

    Maine

    Median household income: $51,494

    Regional price parity out of 100: 98

    Real income: $52,545

    Maryland

    Median household income: $75,847

    Regional price parity out of 100: 109.6

    Real income: $69,203

    Massachusetts

    Median household income: $70,628

    Regional price parity out of 100: 106.9

    Real income: $66,069

    Michigan

    Median household income: $51,084

    Regional price parity out of 100: 93.5

    Real income: $54,635

    Minnesota

    Median household income: $63,488

    Regional price parity out of 100: 97.4

    Real income: $65,183

    Mississippi

    Median household income: $40,593

    Regional price parity out of 100: 86.2

    Real income: $47,092

    Missouri

    Median household income: $50,238

    Regional price parity out of 100: 89.3

    Real income: $56,258

    Montana

    Median household income: $49,509

    Regional price parity out of 100: 94.8

    Real income: $52,225

    Nebraska

    Median household income: $54,996

    Regional price parity out of 100: 90.6

    Real income: $60,702


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-14 12:17:00 UTC