I just went through the comment and it consists of standard language from law, philosophy, social science, and economics. The fact that I am knowledgeable in many fields is uncommon, but the language is neither opaque, or difficult to research, which is – usually – what people do, rather than ascribe to terms of art common in disciplines the vulgar assumption of ‘private speech’.
If you lack knowledge of social science, philosophy, law, economics, and perhaps at least the methodology of the physical sciences, then why is it one would render opinions on such matters?
That comment’s bit of text is quite worthy of contemplation.
If you are not yet able to contemplate it because you lack the vocabulary and knowledge to do so that’s understandable. If you can’t discern its possible value, then that’s understandable. If you can’t glean enough from the pattern of argument that you might infer there is something to be learned here, then that is
Your world is simple with simple problems requiring simple answers. But your post’s question is not one of a simple world with simple answers. It is instead, the accumulated record of 10k years of the resolution of disputes between peoples from the interpersonal to the international scale. International law is constructed by testes of reciprocity.
“Authority (coercion) in defense of voluntary reciprocity whether prescriptive, or proscriptive is always just, regardless of the opinion of the person coerced.”
And the implication is, that people who don’t grasp that are …. let’s say … Primitive? Adolescent? Only human enough not to soil themselves in public?
Source: Original Site Post
-
“When I first began reading you Curt, the difficulty was understanding your impl
—“When I first began reading you Curt, the difficulty was understanding your implied word definitions, many of which conflicted with my own, and therefore made some of your arguments seem nonsensical. Like any new vocabulary, once I learned the language, your arguments seem quite simple. That’s not an insult but a heroic compliment. As an example, I considered myself a libertarian on most topics for years. You dismantled that crap and altered my viewpoint more simply than roasting a chicken.”— Jim Leis (Made. My. Day.) -
“When I first began reading you Curt, the difficulty was understanding your impl
—“When I first began reading you Curt, the difficulty was understanding your implied word definitions, many of which conflicted with my own, and therefore made some of your arguments seem nonsensical. Like any new vocabulary, once I learned the language, your arguments seem quite simple. That’s not an insult but a heroic compliment. As an example, I considered myself a libertarian on most topics for years. You dismantled that crap and altered my viewpoint more simply than roasting a chicken.”— Jim Leis (Made. My. Day.) -
I’m a scientist. I look at the empirical evidence. The empirical evidence is tha
I’m a scientist. I look at the empirical evidence. The empirical evidence is that the most monstrous of the arts is writing in the grammar and semantics of fictionalism (pseudo-science, pseudo-rationalism, and pseudo-mythology), and in particular the conflation of all of the above. The greatest cause of death in history, other than the great plagues and malaria, is the conflationary grammar of fictionalism. The origin of the conflationary grammar of fictionalism is Pilpul – which is argumentatively indifferent when applied to wisdom myth, literature, history, law, astrology, and numerology. So whether men do evil directly, promote evil by intent, or inspire evil indirectly, there is no difference between the evil wrought at interpersonal, social, and civilizational scale – except, that scale. And of those evils, there is none greater than the use of fictionalism. And no good greater than truth that defeats it. All people are capable of free association. Common people lack the agency to separate the great arts of men, from their great crimes. Simple people never grasp the art, only artist – they are incapable otherwise. But the truth is, without exception, men of low character produce low art. Unfortunately, there is a large market demand for low art by people of low character, whether it be decoration, craft, design, art, myth, literature, history, law, science, or … magic, mysticism, astrology, or numerology. Woody Allen is about as bad a person as walks the earth – which was obvious from his works at the time for those of who have an education in the arts. What difference is it if he produces moving pictures from scripts rather than plays, versus the writings of rousseau (far worse than woody allen) or the works of Foucault (a bad person for certain), or the works of Picasso who was terribly ill mannered, and very close if not certainly a pedophile. And I can’t think of a reason not to destroy their works, for in retrospect, they were all results of the sick minds that made them, and perpetuation of that memory is harmful. But if we are to destroy works, how do we select what to destroy? This is the hard question. And this is why we don’t destroy (many) works – we instead create new ones that demonize the producers and their work. The world will not be harmed by the burning of certain films. Although, it is often better to leave the example of their criminality and evil in the historical literature as a warning to those who might venture into similar territories once again, if they had not that reference to draw from. -
I’m a scientist. I look at the empirical evidence. The empirical evidence is tha
I’m a scientist. I look at the empirical evidence. The empirical evidence is that the most monstrous of the arts is writing in the grammar and semantics of fictionalism (pseudo-science, pseudo-rationalism, and pseudo-mythology), and in particular the conflation of all of the above. The greatest cause of death in history, other than the great plagues and malaria, is the conflationary grammar of fictionalism. The origin of the conflationary grammar of fictionalism is Pilpul – which is argumentatively indifferent when applied to wisdom myth, literature, history, law, astrology, and numerology. So whether men do evil directly, promote evil by intent, or inspire evil indirectly, there is no difference between the evil wrought at interpersonal, social, and civilizational scale – except, that scale. And of those evils, there is none greater than the use of fictionalism. And no good greater than truth that defeats it. All people are capable of free association. Common people lack the agency to separate the great arts of men, from their great crimes. Simple people never grasp the art, only artist – they are incapable otherwise. But the truth is, without exception, men of low character produce low art. Unfortunately, there is a large market demand for low art by people of low character, whether it be decoration, craft, design, art, myth, literature, history, law, science, or … magic, mysticism, astrology, or numerology. Woody Allen is about as bad a person as walks the earth – which was obvious from his works at the time for those of who have an education in the arts. What difference is it if he produces moving pictures from scripts rather than plays, versus the writings of rousseau (far worse than woody allen) or the works of Foucault (a bad person for certain), or the works of Picasso who was terribly ill mannered, and very close if not certainly a pedophile. And I can’t think of a reason not to destroy their works, for in retrospect, they were all results of the sick minds that made them, and perpetuation of that memory is harmful. But if we are to destroy works, how do we select what to destroy? This is the hard question. And this is why we don’t destroy (many) works – we instead create new ones that demonize the producers and their work. The world will not be harmed by the burning of certain films. Although, it is often better to leave the example of their criminality and evil in the historical literature as a warning to those who might venture into similar territories once again, if they had not that reference to draw from. -
Curt Doolittle please forgive my intrusion today but I wonder if I accidentally
Curt Doolittle please forgive my intrusion today but I wonder if I accidentally stumbled upon your reason for venturing into the libertarian realm in your evolution, followed by disaffection. It has to do, I’m convinced at the moment, with your sympathy with the elegance of the human mind; the human mind’s nature is either expressed or frustrated; when fulfilled it creates an respected OBSERVANCE of the commons. Mises and Rothbard cannot abide such observance, we note, since the game they actually play was something entirely different. This can only frustrate true human expression, as your own experience and venturing there tells. I derive these conclusions after composing this argument against our anarchist’s premise (as a morning comment): “It’s been found that when young children use their imagination to invent a game to play together, as they often do, they will not first lay out all the rules of the game in a comprehensive way or by logical order. Yet by observing them we know they do formulate and adhere to rules and, further, reciprocate against players who offend those rules: for the sake of fair play. It’s not until their minds mature that they can identify and articulate rules and principles in a precise manner. What might this psychological/ neurological development tell us? Our human psyche is hardwired to identify and articulate rules and principles. But omnipresent is our innate sense of justice and reciprocity. Thus, we have the basis for the commons and our recognition of it as an discern-able abstract representing a complex object (agent interaction) and something very real; also affectual, relevant, immutable. When two agents create a transaction, by this same act, they simultaneously demonstrate publicly then create actually recognition of a commons: official observance. If either hypothetical party were not in observance of the commons, no incentive for trust would exist either. Exchange would thus not be possible. If commons went unrecognized because no party possessed adequate mental acuity to validate or even PERCIEVE a commons, then neither would there exist an incentive, high trust and subsequent market. The mature human mind is vastly complex, which might explain why our bifurcation into righteous human interaction and commons reveals and discovers no less of an elegant thing, which when actualized and fulfilled, if we dare peer objectively from afar, is breathtakingly beautiful. The truest expressions of the human mind are frustrated whenever high trust is not created, whenever the commons goes unrecognized, unobserved, undefended. Human beauty dies. This elegant object is what good men, in constant awe, and for very good reasons, have long fought to secure and preserve for both themselves and the domestics.” -
Curt Doolittle please forgive my intrusion today but I wonder if I accidentally
Curt Doolittle please forgive my intrusion today but I wonder if I accidentally stumbled upon your reason for venturing into the libertarian realm in your evolution, followed by disaffection. It has to do, I’m convinced at the moment, with your sympathy with the elegance of the human mind; the human mind’s nature is either expressed or frustrated; when fulfilled it creates an respected OBSERVANCE of the commons. Mises and Rothbard cannot abide such observance, we note, since the game they actually play was something entirely different. This can only frustrate true human expression, as your own experience and venturing there tells. I derive these conclusions after composing this argument against our anarchist’s premise (as a morning comment): “It’s been found that when young children use their imagination to invent a game to play together, as they often do, they will not first lay out all the rules of the game in a comprehensive way or by logical order. Yet by observing them we know they do formulate and adhere to rules and, further, reciprocate against players who offend those rules: for the sake of fair play. It’s not until their minds mature that they can identify and articulate rules and principles in a precise manner. What might this psychological/ neurological development tell us? Our human psyche is hardwired to identify and articulate rules and principles. But omnipresent is our innate sense of justice and reciprocity. Thus, we have the basis for the commons and our recognition of it as an discern-able abstract representing a complex object (agent interaction) and something very real; also affectual, relevant, immutable. When two agents create a transaction, by this same act, they simultaneously demonstrate publicly then create actually recognition of a commons: official observance. If either hypothetical party were not in observance of the commons, no incentive for trust would exist either. Exchange would thus not be possible. If commons went unrecognized because no party possessed adequate mental acuity to validate or even PERCIEVE a commons, then neither would there exist an incentive, high trust and subsequent market. The mature human mind is vastly complex, which might explain why our bifurcation into righteous human interaction and commons reveals and discovers no less of an elegant thing, which when actualized and fulfilled, if we dare peer objectively from afar, is breathtakingly beautiful. The truest expressions of the human mind are frustrated whenever high trust is not created, whenever the commons goes unrecognized, unobserved, undefended. Human beauty dies. This elegant object is what good men, in constant awe, and for very good reasons, have long fought to secure and preserve for both themselves and the domestics.” -
(birth certificate)(from elsewhere) I rec’d one of the early copies of the pdf,
(birth certificate)(from elsewhere) I rec’d one of the early copies of the pdf, along with a request to review it, and the cuts and pastes were still visible, (pdf’s store revision history just like word documents) and it was obvious that the background was added to the xerox copy afterward as an under-layer. It was a clumsy photocopy, cut, and paste job with an artificial background. There is good reason the original is gone (destroyed). My understanding, and the best explanation I have seen so far, is that data was copied and pasted from other certificates in the same hand in order to replace the uncomfortable data. I probably have it somewhere on an old hard drive, if I went looking for it. So as far as I know it was the work of a clumsy forger. I don’t even think it’s open to question. -
(birth certificate)(from elsewhere) I rec’d one of the early copies of the pdf,
(birth certificate)(from elsewhere) I rec’d one of the early copies of the pdf, along with a request to review it, and the cuts and pastes were still visible, (pdf’s store revision history just like word documents) and it was obvious that the background was added to the xerox copy afterward as an under-layer. It was a clumsy photocopy, cut, and paste job with an artificial background. There is good reason the original is gone (destroyed). My understanding, and the best explanation I have seen so far, is that data was copied and pasted from other certificates in the same hand in order to replace the uncomfortable data. I probably have it somewhere on an old hard drive, if I went looking for it. So as far as I know it was the work of a clumsy forger. I don’t even think it’s open to question. -
White america speaks english, and uses english institutions, but for all intents
White america speaks english, and uses english institutions, but for all intents and purposes, it is culturally german. For the simple reason that most of white america has german origins. England is celtic, german, and scandinavian with french decoration. Germany is the heart of europe. It has no choice. Unlike scandinavia it has enemies at her borders. Scandinavians only have the sea. Hence the rather ridiculous egalitarianism of scandinavians. Scandinavian ‘privilege’ is like women’s privilege: unearned, only consumed.