It’s better to belong to a cult of truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, and markets in everything, than (a) to be wrong, (b) to be a sophist (c) be dedicated to any OTHER cult. Western law is a cult. hence why Americans treat the constitution (of natural law) as sacred. They just couldn’t defend it as such. The law is a cult, and that is its virtue. I’m thoroughly thrilled to institutionalize that cult. You think calling natural law fundamentalism a cult is an insult? It’s a recognition of SUCCESS. (a) a moral license for violence… (b) a set of demands, (c) a plan of transition (d) a threat of sufficient concern that the other parties acquiesce. But better – a scientific religion of intergenerational transmission.
Source: Original Site Post
-
End the Rents
Our people suffer because their high trust is exploitable via rents, where that high trust is not exploitable by credit rents elsewhere. To eliminate this parasitism, we have the choice to cease trustworthiness or to destroy rents. As such I choose, and I am certain we will all choose, to destroy those rents. By destroying rents we will force investments into innovation at risk rather than parasitism on the externalization of risk. Correcting the rent system is actually quite easy.
-
End the Rents
Our people suffer because their high trust is exploitable via rents, where that high trust is not exploitable by credit rents elsewhere. To eliminate this parasitism, we have the choice to cease trustworthiness or to destroy rents. As such I choose, and I am certain we will all choose, to destroy those rents. By destroying rents we will force investments into innovation at risk rather than parasitism on the externalization of risk. Correcting the rent system is actually quite easy.
-
Blockchain
BLOCKCHAIN I am not wrong very often. I wasn’t wrong on this subject either. Blockchain is an inadequate solution, and frankly I haven’t been able to understand how anyone could think otherwise except for having been stunned by the shiny object of the gold rush. IMHO, all we are doing is conducting R&D for post-money fiat money. Why? Because it eliminates the middle-man between the treasury and the people AND it eliminates the state’s ability to *DEFINE PROPERTY RIGHTS*. Even better it eliminates the ability for originators to package and sell loans and then evade responsibility for them. Moreover, it eliminates the problem of check cashing services, and the hard-money-economy of the ‘bottom’. All these things are profoundly important. But the libertarian fantasy that somehow an independent banking system will emerge is as absurd as it always has been. In the end, we have physical actors transferring physical assets, or all we are doing is playing a simulation. And the government can always and everywhere intercede in the physical world – simply because it is so profitable to do so. They have both every incentive and every resource as well as the public good at their disposal. So, while I appreciate that the nerd community wants to obtain sovereignty – all we are doing is devoting our free time and energy to funding the replacement for current absurdly antiquated, third party driven, financial system. This is to say that Holochain is a good step forward. It is also to say that blockchain was … childish… in my opinion as a technologist and political economist. Fun but childish. (And yes I lost I think something under 20K on a blockchain tech investment – but I knew I would. I was helping a friend. ) I can’t quite see a fully operational holochain platform, and the language used in the space is profoundly obscurant, so I have to reserve advocacy until I am capale of doing it honestly. That said it’s much closer to the result. On the other hand a monolithic and redundant system run by the private sector under state contract directly for the treasury is how I expect the solution to roll out. And it is the people who sell the government on that solution that will make all the money. I’d do it but I’m too busy trying to make a revolution ….
-
Blockchain
BLOCKCHAIN I am not wrong very often. I wasn’t wrong on this subject either. Blockchain is an inadequate solution, and frankly I haven’t been able to understand how anyone could think otherwise except for having been stunned by the shiny object of the gold rush. IMHO, all we are doing is conducting R&D for post-money fiat money. Why? Because it eliminates the middle-man between the treasury and the people AND it eliminates the state’s ability to *DEFINE PROPERTY RIGHTS*. Even better it eliminates the ability for originators to package and sell loans and then evade responsibility for them. Moreover, it eliminates the problem of check cashing services, and the hard-money-economy of the ‘bottom’. All these things are profoundly important. But the libertarian fantasy that somehow an independent banking system will emerge is as absurd as it always has been. In the end, we have physical actors transferring physical assets, or all we are doing is playing a simulation. And the government can always and everywhere intercede in the physical world – simply because it is so profitable to do so. They have both every incentive and every resource as well as the public good at their disposal. So, while I appreciate that the nerd community wants to obtain sovereignty – all we are doing is devoting our free time and energy to funding the replacement for current absurdly antiquated, third party driven, financial system. This is to say that Holochain is a good step forward. It is also to say that blockchain was … childish… in my opinion as a technologist and political economist. Fun but childish. (And yes I lost I think something under 20K on a blockchain tech investment – but I knew I would. I was helping a friend. ) I can’t quite see a fully operational holochain platform, and the language used in the space is profoundly obscurant, so I have to reserve advocacy until I am capale of doing it honestly. That said it’s much closer to the result. On the other hand a monolithic and redundant system run by the private sector under state contract directly for the treasury is how I expect the solution to roll out. And it is the people who sell the government on that solution that will make all the money. I’d do it but I’m too busy trying to make a revolution ….
-
Understanding Odin and His Companions
by Bill Joslin The optimum number of wolves for hunting is two. However, when factoring in meat lost to scavenging crows and ravens, plus the time and effort in chasing these corvids off the kill, the optimum rises to six. On the other hand, crows and ravens form bonds with wolves and wolves follow crow calls to find game. They have a symbiotic, cooperative relationship. The corvids help the wolves find game and in turn the corvids gain carcasses to scanvenge. This relationship deepens to the point that crows and wolves form play bonds. And the population of wolves per square mile depends on the corvid population. Crows created the wolf pack. There exists a strong theory that wolves domesticated themselves. They did so by following human hunting parties and lingering on the edge of human settlements. The wolves who were less proximity sensitive (a proto-domestication trait) remained around humans for an easy meal, and those who were higher in proximity sensitivity returned to the crows. Over time wolves which stayed near humans and shared the low proximity sensitivity trait mated and thus began the biological domestication of wolves. Wolves demonstrating domestication traits (smaller teeth, floppy ears, shorter snouts, curly tails) dates back nearly 20,000 years prior to human and dogs living together. With out the domestication of dogs, man most likely would not have domesticated other animals (all domestic animals : cows, goats etc are not likely candidates for domestication compared to other available choices). Without domestication of animals and then plants, man may not have evolved advanced social systems. Wolves created man. Crows, wolves, man – Odin with his crow and wolf companions. It might seem like mythological nonsense but it is not based in metaphysical lies institutionalized as law like other religions
-
Understanding Odin and His Companions
by Bill Joslin The optimum number of wolves for hunting is two. However, when factoring in meat lost to scavenging crows and ravens, plus the time and effort in chasing these corvids off the kill, the optimum rises to six. On the other hand, crows and ravens form bonds with wolves and wolves follow crow calls to find game. They have a symbiotic, cooperative relationship. The corvids help the wolves find game and in turn the corvids gain carcasses to scanvenge. This relationship deepens to the point that crows and wolves form play bonds. And the population of wolves per square mile depends on the corvid population. Crows created the wolf pack. There exists a strong theory that wolves domesticated themselves. They did so by following human hunting parties and lingering on the edge of human settlements. The wolves who were less proximity sensitive (a proto-domestication trait) remained around humans for an easy meal, and those who were higher in proximity sensitivity returned to the crows. Over time wolves which stayed near humans and shared the low proximity sensitivity trait mated and thus began the biological domestication of wolves. Wolves demonstrating domestication traits (smaller teeth, floppy ears, shorter snouts, curly tails) dates back nearly 20,000 years prior to human and dogs living together. With out the domestication of dogs, man most likely would not have domesticated other animals (all domestic animals : cows, goats etc are not likely candidates for domestication compared to other available choices). Without domestication of animals and then plants, man may not have evolved advanced social systems. Wolves created man. Crows, wolves, man – Odin with his crow and wolf companions. It might seem like mythological nonsense but it is not based in metaphysical lies institutionalized as law like other religions
-
Desperate Justification
—For Aspies, “everything I don’t understand is a lie.”— Not even close. “1 – Anything you claim you understand, particularly for the purpose of deduction, or argument, that you cannot express operationally, you do not in fact understand. 2 – Anything you state can be reduced to one more more hypotheses operational language. 3 – Anything stated as such in operational language can be tested for attempts at avoiding costs of reciprocity. 4 – Anything avoiding such costs is an attempt at fraud (theft). 5 – We are, all of us, unaware, that our biases serve the purpose of conducting opportunistic fraud.” The fact that you (or anyone) can claim to have an understanding of the arguments I make, without understanding this, is … well a contradiction in and of itself. You can try all you want. You won’t defeat this line of argument. It’s the formal logica of cooperation, and therefore the formal logic of natural law. All psychologism is false. Appeals to aspieness are false. It makes no difference if the truth is randomly produced or intentionally derived. Statements are true, false or undecidable. These are just justifications or excuses. So while you were raised and trained to search for reasonableness (permissive), I changed that logic into ‘test for theft’ (intolerant). So while I am tolerant of criticism which is necessary for the training of others, the discovery of talent, and the improvement of my arguments, I am not terribly tolerant of psychologism to mask opportunities for theft, by the subconscious of anyone who is unconscious of his attempt at discounting or theft. What we call ‘Meaning’ must create opportunities for free association. Meaning serves as a search algorithm. We can construct meaning (searches) that create positive externalities (see the influence of general scientific rules over rules of specific context ). We can construct meaning (searches) that create helpful externalities (prejudices). And we can construct meaning (searches) that create destructive externalities (what popper called ‘sources of ignorance’), and we can construct meaning (searches) that are suicidal. And we can create anything in between. We can and do limit people to speech that produces direct and indirect harms. There is nothing we cannot teach by the hyperbolic and supernormal. The fact that we have not limited people to speech that produces indirect harms by appeal to the supernatural, pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational – at least in matters of commerce, politics, and education is merely a failure of our tradition of incremental suppression via the common law of the means of conducting frauds. We (((or others))) industrialized fraud. There is no reason why we cannot end it. If that means depriving storytellers of supernatural, pseudoscientific, and pseudorational prose, the way we have deprived murderers, thieves, frauds, conspirators, and snake oil salesmen of their means of conducting harms, then that just continues the long tradition of suppressing the current means of parasitism and increasing the costs of that parasitism so that it remains more rewarding to participate in the market for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs externality upon the demonstrated investments of others. Drug addicts make excuses. Rent seekers make excuses. Frauds make excuses. And pragmatists make excuses. But theft is not an opinion. It’s a truth. Thus endeth the lesson. —“I hope someone picks up this Propertarianism thing and makes it widespread. It won’t be you Curt. However much I like you.”— Daniel Roland Anderson Again you just illustrate my point, by justification, psychologism (ridicule), and evasion. Painful truths are not popular. The law is the least popular. They are however, decidable. Apr 13, 2018 1:33pm
-
Desperate Justification
—For Aspies, “everything I don’t understand is a lie.”— Not even close. “1 – Anything you claim you understand, particularly for the purpose of deduction, or argument, that you cannot express operationally, you do not in fact understand. 2 – Anything you state can be reduced to one more more hypotheses operational language. 3 – Anything stated as such in operational language can be tested for attempts at avoiding costs of reciprocity. 4 – Anything avoiding such costs is an attempt at fraud (theft). 5 – We are, all of us, unaware, that our biases serve the purpose of conducting opportunistic fraud.” The fact that you (or anyone) can claim to have an understanding of the arguments I make, without understanding this, is … well a contradiction in and of itself. You can try all you want. You won’t defeat this line of argument. It’s the formal logica of cooperation, and therefore the formal logic of natural law. All psychologism is false. Appeals to aspieness are false. It makes no difference if the truth is randomly produced or intentionally derived. Statements are true, false or undecidable. These are just justifications or excuses. So while you were raised and trained to search for reasonableness (permissive), I changed that logic into ‘test for theft’ (intolerant). So while I am tolerant of criticism which is necessary for the training of others, the discovery of talent, and the improvement of my arguments, I am not terribly tolerant of psychologism to mask opportunities for theft, by the subconscious of anyone who is unconscious of his attempt at discounting or theft. What we call ‘Meaning’ must create opportunities for free association. Meaning serves as a search algorithm. We can construct meaning (searches) that create positive externalities (see the influence of general scientific rules over rules of specific context ). We can construct meaning (searches) that create helpful externalities (prejudices). And we can construct meaning (searches) that create destructive externalities (what popper called ‘sources of ignorance’), and we can construct meaning (searches) that are suicidal. And we can create anything in between. We can and do limit people to speech that produces direct and indirect harms. There is nothing we cannot teach by the hyperbolic and supernormal. The fact that we have not limited people to speech that produces indirect harms by appeal to the supernatural, pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational – at least in matters of commerce, politics, and education is merely a failure of our tradition of incremental suppression via the common law of the means of conducting frauds. We (((or others))) industrialized fraud. There is no reason why we cannot end it. If that means depriving storytellers of supernatural, pseudoscientific, and pseudorational prose, the way we have deprived murderers, thieves, frauds, conspirators, and snake oil salesmen of their means of conducting harms, then that just continues the long tradition of suppressing the current means of parasitism and increasing the costs of that parasitism so that it remains more rewarding to participate in the market for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs externality upon the demonstrated investments of others. Drug addicts make excuses. Rent seekers make excuses. Frauds make excuses. And pragmatists make excuses. But theft is not an opinion. It’s a truth. Thus endeth the lesson. —“I hope someone picks up this Propertarianism thing and makes it widespread. It won’t be you Curt. However much I like you.”— Daniel Roland Anderson Again you just illustrate my point, by justification, psychologism (ridicule), and evasion. Painful truths are not popular. The law is the least popular. They are however, decidable. Apr 13, 2018 1:33pm
-
Using the Safety of The Sacrifice
If any of you have spent time in the high finance industry the vocabulary and grammar have been altered so that no one is ever accountable for anything. All sorts of groups develop protocols that make speaking truth to power devoid of blame. Much of what we read in history developed for the purpose of using the safety of the sacrifice (shared meal), as a means to issue opinions without threat to the dominance hierarchy.