May 6, 2020, 11:45 AM 1. Conscientiousness => Competency, Success,2. IQ => Complexity, speed, error reduction. General knowledge (by reading) and practical knowledge (by doing) are the only known ways of improving your demonstrated intelligence. In this sense conscientiousness will increase your demonstrated intelligence if not your physical intelligence How do you improve conscientiousness? Slow down, Focus, Stay in the moment, Don’t stop even when you feel the frustration building, look around, breathe, return to the subject. In other words, you develop “MINDFULNESS”. Mindfulness produces agency.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Mindfulness Produces Agency.
May 6, 2020, 11:45 AM 1. Conscientiousness => Competency, Success,2. IQ => Complexity, speed, error reduction. General knowledge (by reading) and practical knowledge (by doing) are the only known ways of improving your demonstrated intelligence. In this sense conscientiousness will increase your demonstrated intelligence if not your physical intelligence How do you improve conscientiousness? Slow down, Focus, Stay in the moment, Don’t stop even when you feel the frustration building, look around, breathe, return to the subject. In other words, you develop “MINDFULNESS”. Mindfulness produces agency.
-
P Increases the Scope of The Crime of Baiting Into Hazard
May 7, 2020, 8:32 AM The lender baits you into hazard, not the manufacturer. cash in hand is a present demonstrated capacity. credit is a prediction of future demonstrated capacity. So we don’t confuse ideals (omniscience) with due diligence and statistics free of arbitrage. Where arbitrage is charging It’s reciprocal as long as it’s fully informed. (we also included right to repair – which would increase the price of the car and decrease the price of maintenance.) creditworthiness is an actuarial science, and with linear returns and without loss-arbitrage, problem disappears. If it wasn’t in one’s self interest one wouldn’t do it. The court can’t determine self interest (via positiva) it can only determine harm. Courts do not determine ‘good’ (that’s choice) they determine harm. The Labor of rule of law is divided by design: Monarchy, Military, Law, Government, Court, Individual. And that law produces limits on monarchy, military, Government, court, and the individual.
- The individual produces agreements (good, specific).
- Court produces rulings (bad, specific),
- Government produces legislation (good and general),
- The military produces commands (necessary specific crisis)
- In UK Monarchy for when all fail. Monarchy is above the law. (Specific Crisis)
The foundation of contract law is reciprocity, and irreciprocal contracts will not be enforced by the court. The problem is the court’s definition of irreciprocity favors personal choice and consequence rather than legal defense from baiting into hazard. P increases the scope of the law to cover both false promise, and baiting into hazard, at contractual ( private contracts ) and political ( contracts of the commons ) scales. This is the weakness in the current law. (Imagine what would happen if we kept credit ratings, but ended debt collection. We might not have to do anything else.)
-
P Increases the Scope of The Crime of Baiting Into Hazard
May 7, 2020, 8:32 AM The lender baits you into hazard, not the manufacturer. cash in hand is a present demonstrated capacity. credit is a prediction of future demonstrated capacity. So we don’t confuse ideals (omniscience) with due diligence and statistics free of arbitrage. Where arbitrage is charging It’s reciprocal as long as it’s fully informed. (we also included right to repair – which would increase the price of the car and decrease the price of maintenance.) creditworthiness is an actuarial science, and with linear returns and without loss-arbitrage, problem disappears. If it wasn’t in one’s self interest one wouldn’t do it. The court can’t determine self interest (via positiva) it can only determine harm. Courts do not determine ‘good’ (that’s choice) they determine harm. The Labor of rule of law is divided by design: Monarchy, Military, Law, Government, Court, Individual. And that law produces limits on monarchy, military, Government, court, and the individual.
- The individual produces agreements (good, specific).
- Court produces rulings (bad, specific),
- Government produces legislation (good and general),
- The military produces commands (necessary specific crisis)
- In UK Monarchy for when all fail. Monarchy is above the law. (Specific Crisis)
The foundation of contract law is reciprocity, and irreciprocal contracts will not be enforced by the court. The problem is the court’s definition of irreciprocity favors personal choice and consequence rather than legal defense from baiting into hazard. P increases the scope of the law to cover both false promise, and baiting into hazard, at contractual ( private contracts ) and political ( contracts of the commons ) scales. This is the weakness in the current law. (Imagine what would happen if we kept credit ratings, but ended debt collection. We might not have to do anything else.)
-
Trying to Get My Arms Around the Indian Culture.
May 7, 2020, 10:41 AM THE VERY VERY GOOD Their religion if you want to call it that is wonderful. Partly because it’s not really a religion but like buddhism more a way of life. It’s what I wish we had for europeans – our natural religion. THE VERY GOOD They have the no-hostility thing down. They have non-aggression down. They have presumption of kindness down. They have pretty good impulse control THE PROBLEM IS NOT AN UNSOLVABLE It’s the honesty-responsibility thing. They have approval before truth (non-offense) They don’t take any responsibility for commons So look at the kind of crime they have and it tells you what kind of culture they have. Pervasive familism – even in indian mafias Pervasive corruption Telephone scams. Indirect crimes Petty crime Robbery Less violent crime. They have the usual organized crime problem too, and they do have organized crime that escalates into terrorism. I would rather fix the problem of india than the middle east. The problem is that the country is an empire or civilization and it’s too big to centrally govern.
-
Trying to Get My Arms Around the Indian Culture.
May 7, 2020, 10:41 AM THE VERY VERY GOOD Their religion if you want to call it that is wonderful. Partly because it’s not really a religion but like buddhism more a way of life. It’s what I wish we had for europeans – our natural religion. THE VERY GOOD They have the no-hostility thing down. They have non-aggression down. They have presumption of kindness down. They have pretty good impulse control THE PROBLEM IS NOT AN UNSOLVABLE It’s the honesty-responsibility thing. They have approval before truth (non-offense) They don’t take any responsibility for commons So look at the kind of crime they have and it tells you what kind of culture they have. Pervasive familism – even in indian mafias Pervasive corruption Telephone scams. Indirect crimes Petty crime Robbery Less violent crime. They have the usual organized crime problem too, and they do have organized crime that escalates into terrorism. I would rather fix the problem of india than the middle east. The problem is that the country is an empire or civilization and it’s too big to centrally govern.
-
Amazingly, There Are Still a Few Village Idiots that Countersignal Use of 2 a For Its Primary Intended Purpose
May 7 at 1:10 PM · by John Mark (I found a few in a comment section on someone else’s post.) Timing matters. Plans matter. Even though there is already all the moral authority necessary and then some, “an undeniable excuse” matters. People exhaust all other options. Virus lockdowns in the face of the real data are approaching that undeniable excuse. People who have been hopping mad for decades are targeting their timing around a moment when critical mass is strong (waiting for a particularly good opportunity) because it increases chance of success. It increases the percentage and numbers of the population willing to “support and copy and join” rather than disavowing out of ignorance, comfort, or fear. Accusing high-agency people who are being smart of being “larpers” is simply false. (I’m not saying there is no such thing as a larper, I’m saying there are many who are not, but are being smart in order to maximize chance of success.) Anyone who countersignals using 2A for its primary intended purpose is either a moron or a coward or both. Force can never be off the table, because if you take it off the table, you are guaranteed to be walked all over by your enemies forever. These people that countersignal using 2A for its primary purpose are just showing their cowardice and idiocy. They have no solution to offer. Either they don’t understand the situation – they don’t realize soon the Right will win no more national elections due to immigration (Covid will give us only temporary reprieve if the current system is not upended), and they don’t realize why persuasion doesn’t work on the Left – or they do understand it and are just weak. Even if you yourself can’t or won’t pay the price or take the risk necessary to be “tip of the spear”, why on earth would you countersignal those who are and will? What kind of idiot countersignals those who are willing to risk their own lives to save your ass? (And if you think “it’s impossible to win” you have no understanding of 4G warfare, or the basic numbers of armed people on each “team”, etc.) Ask these countersignalers what their proposed solution is – they have none. If they have any ideas to offer, it’s always either “form white communities” (you’ll have to use force eventually anyway, you’ll just be on defense instead of on offense), or some version of “we can persuade people” which is dead on arrival due to nonwhite immigration. Don’t countersignal the groups that may seem to be “larpers” to you, either. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference between larpers and those who will do what it takes. Sure, many are normiecons/civnats but that just means that the Smart/Winning Right must lead them. Look around. Normiecons are casually talking about bombing the govorner’s mansion due to these lockdowns. A groundswell of support for “replacing the current system” is building on the Right at a faster and faster rate. Why would someone choose this moment to countersignal using 2A for its main purpose and take force off the table? Silly.
-
Amazingly, There Are Still a Few Village Idiots that Countersignal Use of 2 a For Its Primary Intended Purpose
May 7 at 1:10 PM · by John Mark (I found a few in a comment section on someone else’s post.) Timing matters. Plans matter. Even though there is already all the moral authority necessary and then some, “an undeniable excuse” matters. People exhaust all other options. Virus lockdowns in the face of the real data are approaching that undeniable excuse. People who have been hopping mad for decades are targeting their timing around a moment when critical mass is strong (waiting for a particularly good opportunity) because it increases chance of success. It increases the percentage and numbers of the population willing to “support and copy and join” rather than disavowing out of ignorance, comfort, or fear. Accusing high-agency people who are being smart of being “larpers” is simply false. (I’m not saying there is no such thing as a larper, I’m saying there are many who are not, but are being smart in order to maximize chance of success.) Anyone who countersignals using 2A for its primary intended purpose is either a moron or a coward or both. Force can never be off the table, because if you take it off the table, you are guaranteed to be walked all over by your enemies forever. These people that countersignal using 2A for its primary purpose are just showing their cowardice and idiocy. They have no solution to offer. Either they don’t understand the situation – they don’t realize soon the Right will win no more national elections due to immigration (Covid will give us only temporary reprieve if the current system is not upended), and they don’t realize why persuasion doesn’t work on the Left – or they do understand it and are just weak. Even if you yourself can’t or won’t pay the price or take the risk necessary to be “tip of the spear”, why on earth would you countersignal those who are and will? What kind of idiot countersignals those who are willing to risk their own lives to save your ass? (And if you think “it’s impossible to win” you have no understanding of 4G warfare, or the basic numbers of armed people on each “team”, etc.) Ask these countersignalers what their proposed solution is – they have none. If they have any ideas to offer, it’s always either “form white communities” (you’ll have to use force eventually anyway, you’ll just be on defense instead of on offense), or some version of “we can persuade people” which is dead on arrival due to nonwhite immigration. Don’t countersignal the groups that may seem to be “larpers” to you, either. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference between larpers and those who will do what it takes. Sure, many are normiecons/civnats but that just means that the Smart/Winning Right must lead them. Look around. Normiecons are casually talking about bombing the govorner’s mansion due to these lockdowns. A groundswell of support for “replacing the current system” is building on the Right at a faster and faster rate. Why would someone choose this moment to countersignal using 2A for its main purpose and take force off the table? Silly.
-
Giving the little Guy Power
May 7, 2020, 11:14 PM by John Mark
“The way Propertarian law gives the little guy power to punish powerful people via the courts (and cleans up the judiciary and clarifies/strengthens jurisprudence) is good, but won’t the little guy still be at a disadvantage due to lack of ability to pay lawyers compared to the rich?”
(Common question)(There may be more to the answer than I am putting here, but this is part of it.) As I understand it, it will work largely the same way it works now, when, say, an individual sues a car company for selling cars with faulty brakes & people die. Or a group of individuals get together and do it. Often lawyers take the case not cuz of pay up front but because of good chance of getting a nice chunk of the payout. (Most people who win these types of cases don’t win cuz they’re rich, but because they’re right.) But under P-law the ability to keep people accountable for imposing costs (breaking reciprocity) in this manner will be greatly expanded to cover all actions/activities & no more hiding behind position (politician, judge) or corporate veil (CEO). And…good question, but if someone asks this question and eventually concludes “this system won’t work perfectly” (nothing will be perfect, but “much better than now” is certainly possible) and then goes to “it’s not worth supporting or trying this idea”, the onus is then on them to provide a better solution to stopping violations of reciprocity and keeping the powerful accountable. No one ever suggests a better solution. The only one that comes close is “an all-powerful strongman that just punishes people with arbitrary power”, but if we’re strong enough to support and defend such a person who rules arbitrarily, we would also be strong enough to implement propertarian law and cut out the arbitrariness. Arbitrariness carries much larger risk of abuse, and an all-powerful monarch or strongman’s percentage chance of good decisions being made consistently is better than democracy but worse than good rule of law, and much less durable than good rule of law (what if king/strongman’s heir is dumb or evil or capricious etc), so why wouldn’t we just implement and defend P-law instead of supporting and defending a strongman?
-
Giving the little Guy Power
May 7, 2020, 11:14 PM by John Mark
“The way Propertarian law gives the little guy power to punish powerful people via the courts (and cleans up the judiciary and clarifies/strengthens jurisprudence) is good, but won’t the little guy still be at a disadvantage due to lack of ability to pay lawyers compared to the rich?”
(Common question)(There may be more to the answer than I am putting here, but this is part of it.) As I understand it, it will work largely the same way it works now, when, say, an individual sues a car company for selling cars with faulty brakes & people die. Or a group of individuals get together and do it. Often lawyers take the case not cuz of pay up front but because of good chance of getting a nice chunk of the payout. (Most people who win these types of cases don’t win cuz they’re rich, but because they’re right.) But under P-law the ability to keep people accountable for imposing costs (breaking reciprocity) in this manner will be greatly expanded to cover all actions/activities & no more hiding behind position (politician, judge) or corporate veil (CEO). And…good question, but if someone asks this question and eventually concludes “this system won’t work perfectly” (nothing will be perfect, but “much better than now” is certainly possible) and then goes to “it’s not worth supporting or trying this idea”, the onus is then on them to provide a better solution to stopping violations of reciprocity and keeping the powerful accountable. No one ever suggests a better solution. The only one that comes close is “an all-powerful strongman that just punishes people with arbitrary power”, but if we’re strong enough to support and defend such a person who rules arbitrarily, we would also be strong enough to implement propertarian law and cut out the arbitrariness. Arbitrariness carries much larger risk of abuse, and an all-powerful monarch or strongman’s percentage chance of good decisions being made consistently is better than democracy but worse than good rule of law, and much less durable than good rule of law (what if king/strongman’s heir is dumb or evil or capricious etc), so why wouldn’t we just implement and defend P-law instead of supporting and defending a strongman?