1) The form of government must be flexible enough to account for ordinary times ( rule of law, judicial monarchy, and markets), endure warfare (fascism), and distribute windfalls ( participatory commons selection ) – although the latter is always questionably necessary unless sufficient to shift classes. 2) When one says “Absolutism” in government, one can refer to total discretion in the administration of state and production of commons but remaining under rule of law. Otherwise it just means ‘dictatorship’. 3) When one says “absolutism” in rule of law, and therefore morality and ethics, this is my position on the natural law of reciprocity. In that it is an exceptionless rule. And therefore a case of “Absolutism”. In other words “Natural Law of Reciprocity = White Sharia = Absolutism”. For reasons that are strange if you think about it, westerners have no concept of absolutism because in the west, truth is always beyond our grasp and markets are our means of decision making between sovereigns. (Assuming you’re from the martial/craftsman/property owner rather than priestly or peasant classes).
Source: Original Site Post
-
Two Meanings of Absolutism: One Good, One Bad.
1) The form of government must be flexible enough to account for ordinary times ( rule of law, judicial monarchy, and markets), endure warfare (fascism), and distribute windfalls ( participatory commons selection ) – although the latter is always questionably necessary unless sufficient to shift classes. 2) When one says “Absolutism” in government, one can refer to total discretion in the administration of state and production of commons but remaining under rule of law. Otherwise it just means ‘dictatorship’. 3) When one says “absolutism” in rule of law, and therefore morality and ethics, this is my position on the natural law of reciprocity. In that it is an exceptionless rule. And therefore a case of “Absolutism”. In other words “Natural Law of Reciprocity = White Sharia = Absolutism”. For reasons that are strange if you think about it, westerners have no concept of absolutism because in the west, truth is always beyond our grasp and markets are our means of decision making between sovereigns. (Assuming you’re from the martial/craftsman/property owner rather than priestly or peasant classes).
-
The Trick to Understanding Statistics Isn’t Math – Its ‘markets’ (competition in Equilibration)
THE TRICK TO UNDERSTANDING STATISTICS ISN’T MATH – ITS ‘MARKETS’ (COMPETITION IN EQUILIBRATION) There is nothing in genetic charts that requires mathematics to understand, just like there are no mathematical statements that cannot be expressed in ordinary (natural) language, and therefore understandable. The vast majority of genetics is nothing other than statistical analysis. The vast majority of statistical analysis is a list of single-regression analysis (set of variables), and then organizing those ‘lines’ into supply demand curves. It’s the second part – supply demand curves – rather than trying to produce a single line (distribution) using complex mathematics that (a) leads to errors and (b) is so prominent in the data. Some of us intuitively understand this, or have been educated in markets or economics or the competition of life, or the competition of evolution such that we are not so easily fooled. But the average person still operates by intuition considering himself as the standard unit of measure when interpreting data – which is precisely the same as creating a complex series of regression analysis in an attempt to produce a single statement. Think about that a bit.
-
The Trick to Understanding Statistics Isn’t Math – Its ‘markets’ (competition in Equilibration)
THE TRICK TO UNDERSTANDING STATISTICS ISN’T MATH – ITS ‘MARKETS’ (COMPETITION IN EQUILIBRATION) There is nothing in genetic charts that requires mathematics to understand, just like there are no mathematical statements that cannot be expressed in ordinary (natural) language, and therefore understandable. The vast majority of genetics is nothing other than statistical analysis. The vast majority of statistical analysis is a list of single-regression analysis (set of variables), and then organizing those ‘lines’ into supply demand curves. It’s the second part – supply demand curves – rather than trying to produce a single line (distribution) using complex mathematics that (a) leads to errors and (b) is so prominent in the data. Some of us intuitively understand this, or have been educated in markets or economics or the competition of life, or the competition of evolution such that we are not so easily fooled. But the average person still operates by intuition considering himself as the standard unit of measure when interpreting data – which is precisely the same as creating a complex series of regression analysis in an attempt to produce a single statement. Think about that a bit.
-
When the Constitution Was Written…
When the constitution was written, spelling was often phonetic rather than canonized as it has been post-Webster. Capitalization and font size were used as emphasis – bold not available to the pen, as it is today in print. Grammar was more formal and still retained some academic latin influences – including longer sentence structure. And it was written in the context of traditional Common Law, which itself was written in the context of Anglo Saxon Law, which codified Ancient Germanic law, which preserved european (west indo-european) traditional law. This presents a conflict because natural law of reciprocity needs strict construction to eliminate interpretation and the constitution relied on familiarity with that tradition rather than strict construction – Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, and Markets in Everything are not stated, but assumed to the same degree as the existence of god and the perpetual existence of the church. Hence why the constitution must be rewritten with those definitions and with strict construction to ensure that that knowledge of that long tradition is no longer required, and also so that such a constitution is no longer open to interpretation.
-
When the Constitution Was Written…
When the constitution was written, spelling was often phonetic rather than canonized as it has been post-Webster. Capitalization and font size were used as emphasis – bold not available to the pen, as it is today in print. Grammar was more formal and still retained some academic latin influences – including longer sentence structure. And it was written in the context of traditional Common Law, which itself was written in the context of Anglo Saxon Law, which codified Ancient Germanic law, which preserved european (west indo-european) traditional law. This presents a conflict because natural law of reciprocity needs strict construction to eliminate interpretation and the constitution relied on familiarity with that tradition rather than strict construction – Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, and Markets in Everything are not stated, but assumed to the same degree as the existence of god and the perpetual existence of the church. Hence why the constitution must be rewritten with those definitions and with strict construction to ensure that that knowledge of that long tradition is no longer required, and also so that such a constitution is no longer open to interpretation.
-
Sovereignty vs Liberty vs Freedom
Sovereignty in fact – because a group has enough capacity for violence to produce sovereignty over the will or ability of any and all competitors. Liberty by request – because a group does not have enough capacity for violence to produce sovereignty, but can purchase liberty with fees (taxes). Freedom by permission – because an individual has too little violence to produce sovereignty, and too little violence to request liberty, but can purchase freedom through non-interference and payment of fees (taxes). Sovereignty is produced as a commons(Polity/Executive). Liberty is produced as a commons(Business/Managerial). Freedom is given to produce commons (Trades/Labor). Serfdom is imposed to produce commons at cost(Labor). Slavery is imposed to produce commons at high cost(labor). Whether one demonstrates a condition of Sovereignty(Aristocracy: Polity/Territory), Liberty(Citizen : capital), or freedom (Freeman: body), the production of such must be constructed top down: from commons to degree of property ownership (responsibility) since while it is most productive to have the greatest distribution of property, it is also most productive to limit the distribution of property to those who produce commons. Since productivity determines the ability for a polity to compete for sovereignty and territory the distribution of property therefore productivity and responsibility is determined by competitive necessity versus the abilities of the population. Hence the need for growth to defeat the red queen of technology and productivity, against men, and to defeat the red queen of evolution (or devolution, or extinction).
-
Sovereignty vs Liberty vs Freedom
Sovereignty in fact – because a group has enough capacity for violence to produce sovereignty over the will or ability of any and all competitors. Liberty by request – because a group does not have enough capacity for violence to produce sovereignty, but can purchase liberty with fees (taxes). Freedom by permission – because an individual has too little violence to produce sovereignty, and too little violence to request liberty, but can purchase freedom through non-interference and payment of fees (taxes). Sovereignty is produced as a commons(Polity/Executive). Liberty is produced as a commons(Business/Managerial). Freedom is given to produce commons (Trades/Labor). Serfdom is imposed to produce commons at cost(Labor). Slavery is imposed to produce commons at high cost(labor). Whether one demonstrates a condition of Sovereignty(Aristocracy: Polity/Territory), Liberty(Citizen : capital), or freedom (Freeman: body), the production of such must be constructed top down: from commons to degree of property ownership (responsibility) since while it is most productive to have the greatest distribution of property, it is also most productive to limit the distribution of property to those who produce commons. Since productivity determines the ability for a polity to compete for sovereignty and territory the distribution of property therefore productivity and responsibility is determined by competitive necessity versus the abilities of the population. Hence the need for growth to defeat the red queen of technology and productivity, against men, and to defeat the red queen of evolution (or devolution, or extinction).
-
Ethical Ai? Yes Its Solvable and Trivially so
1) Ethical AI is a trivially solvable problem in (a) hardware (b) software design (c) requirement of insurance, and (d) extremely harsh punishment of violations of that law, applied to every person in the chain of decidability. (d) international treaty. 2) We have solved this problem for thousands of years among humans with one single rule. All civilizations and all law is based upon that one rule. That politicians, philosophers and theologians ‘skirt’ that rule does not mean we cannot apply it to software. 3) There is nothing ethical or moral about war. That war exists defines the limit of ethics and morality. There will be killing machines just as there are machine guns and nuclear weapons, and the first people to invent them will dominate war, politics, economics, for a century. 4) The military incentive always DEFINES the political order. Not the other way around. You cannot stop this technology. This tech means greatest manufacturing capacity and engineering capacity will dominate all future wars – and therefore politics and therefore economics. 5) However, it is entirely possible to protect citizens from criminal uses the same way we do from nuclear weapons. However, the cost of AI will be in the billions today and dependent on vast infrastructure. But this price will decrease while the cost of refining n-weapons won’t. -
Ethical Ai? Yes Its Solvable and Trivially so
1) Ethical AI is a trivially solvable problem in (a) hardware (b) software design (c) requirement of insurance, and (d) extremely harsh punishment of violations of that law, applied to every person in the chain of decidability. (d) international treaty. 2) We have solved this problem for thousands of years among humans with one single rule. All civilizations and all law is based upon that one rule. That politicians, philosophers and theologians ‘skirt’ that rule does not mean we cannot apply it to software. 3) There is nothing ethical or moral about war. That war exists defines the limit of ethics and morality. There will be killing machines just as there are machine guns and nuclear weapons, and the first people to invent them will dominate war, politics, economics, for a century. 4) The military incentive always DEFINES the political order. Not the other way around. You cannot stop this technology. This tech means greatest manufacturing capacity and engineering capacity will dominate all future wars – and therefore politics and therefore economics. 5) However, it is entirely possible to protect citizens from criminal uses the same way we do from nuclear weapons. However, the cost of AI will be in the billions today and dependent on vast infrastructure. But this price will decrease while the cost of refining n-weapons won’t.