I have no problem b–ch slapping idiots who socialize on the phone in public places; and I understand the importance of taking business calls even when it’s inconvenient. And yes, not only have I been unintentionally loud in restaurants, and yes, at least in the past, I’ve been overloaded, distracted, or clueless enough to be profoundly rude in un-exitable places like airplanes, airports, lobbies and streets outside of restaurants, and yes, I understand third worlders are uncivilized animals who blither endlessly, express themselves loudly, gesture freely, impede people with more urgent matters, treat public spaces like extensions of their favella-hovels, and otherwise soil the the commons with their display, word, and deed. But you know when a fellow anglo saxon acts like one of the underclasses and semi-domesticated animals, it irritates the hell out of me. Thankfully, in my middle age, I’m patient enough to simply, and in friendly manner, remind the individual that he’s unaware that he’s very loud, and that an hour long business and finance call needs be made in a better setting. The difference is that fellow anglo saxons at least apologize for their inconsiderate behavior, instead of look at you cluelessly or get angry for disciplining them.
Source: Original Site Post
-
RE: (from previous post) “One does not argue from preferences, beliefs or princi
RE: (from previous post) “One does not argue from preferences, beliefs or principles but from truth or falsehood, possibility or impossibility, gain or loss, volition or non-volition, reciprocity or non-reciprocity.” —“Are my questions or experience less important because your education level and living standards are better than mine? Does that make me a lesser person because or is my ignorance irrelevant and therefore my principles irrelevant.”– A Friend. I don’t make theological, ideal, or pseudo moral arguments, and that is what you have (unintentionally) done. So… Let me translate your “question” into propertarian language: “I have endeavored to be an ethical and moral man, and therefore born a cost on behalf of the polity, the civilization, and mankind, and therefore I feel reciprocity is due me; and that you owe me a debt and should bear the cost of answering my questions and educating me; and that my concerns should influence other’s actions; and do so despite the fact that I demand my level of knowledge and compliance serve as a means of decidability, rather than some objective measure that is not so dependent upon my levels of knowledge and ability.” Well, in the family that argument works, and in a small organization that might work, but in a polity and across polities there are no such obligations, and questionable value to them. What I said was that one’s self is a measure of nothing true – only one’s ability, ignorance and knowledge. And that arguments to principle, belief, and preference tell us nothing other than “i want…” or “i demand…. in exchange for my cooperation”. And so that instead we ask FIRST whether questions consist of truth or falsehood, possibility or impossibility, gain or loss, volition or non-volition(rational), reciprocity or non-reciprocity(moral). AND THEN determine if they are preferable AFTERWARD. And we search for true, possible, gainful, volitional, and moral answers until we find one that suits one’s preferences – or determine doing so is impossible. And in this search for a true, possible, gainful, volitional, and moral solution, one learns how to discourse truthfully, possibly, gainfully, volitionally, and morally. I would say, that in defense of reciprocity, that if you will discourse honestly with me, then as long as I am not harmed or otherwise deprived of another opportunity more rewarding, then it is not a loss to cooperate with you for your benefit, and perhaps mine – and perhaps the net result might be some (very) minor civic good. And so, given that my present choice is to bang my head on the virtual wall of my current tome in order to determine how to demonstrate that all grammars function as instruments of measurement, I choose to discourse with you, rather than bank my head on the virtual wall – in the hope that it will do some civic (and moral) good. 😉 -
RE: (from previous post) “One does not argue from preferences, beliefs or princi
RE: (from previous post) “One does not argue from preferences, beliefs or principles but from truth or falsehood, possibility or impossibility, gain or loss, volition or non-volition, reciprocity or non-reciprocity.” —“Are my questions or experience less important because your education level and living standards are better than mine? Does that make me a lesser person because or is my ignorance irrelevant and therefore my principles irrelevant.”– A Friend. I don’t make theological, ideal, or pseudo moral arguments, and that is what you have (unintentionally) done. So… Let me translate your “question” into propertarian language: “I have endeavored to be an ethical and moral man, and therefore born a cost on behalf of the polity, the civilization, and mankind, and therefore I feel reciprocity is due me; and that you owe me a debt and should bear the cost of answering my questions and educating me; and that my concerns should influence other’s actions; and do so despite the fact that I demand my level of knowledge and compliance serve as a means of decidability, rather than some objective measure that is not so dependent upon my levels of knowledge and ability.” Well, in the family that argument works, and in a small organization that might work, but in a polity and across polities there are no such obligations, and questionable value to them. What I said was that one’s self is a measure of nothing true – only one’s ability, ignorance and knowledge. And that arguments to principle, belief, and preference tell us nothing other than “i want…” or “i demand…. in exchange for my cooperation”. And so that instead we ask FIRST whether questions consist of truth or falsehood, possibility or impossibility, gain or loss, volition or non-volition(rational), reciprocity or non-reciprocity(moral). AND THEN determine if they are preferable AFTERWARD. And we search for true, possible, gainful, volitional, and moral answers until we find one that suits one’s preferences – or determine doing so is impossible. And in this search for a true, possible, gainful, volitional, and moral solution, one learns how to discourse truthfully, possibly, gainfully, volitionally, and morally. I would say, that in defense of reciprocity, that if you will discourse honestly with me, then as long as I am not harmed or otherwise deprived of another opportunity more rewarding, then it is not a loss to cooperate with you for your benefit, and perhaps mine – and perhaps the net result might be some (very) minor civic good. And so, given that my present choice is to bang my head on the virtual wall of my current tome in order to determine how to demonstrate that all grammars function as instruments of measurement, I choose to discourse with you, rather than bank my head on the virtual wall – in the hope that it will do some civic (and moral) good. 😉 -
One’s experience is just a matter of ignorance vs knowledge. The truth or falseh
One’s experience is just a matter of ignorance vs knowledge. The truth or falsehood, possibility or impossibility, gain or loss, volition or non-volition(of others) are all decidable whether you’re ignorant or knowledgeable. Using “principle, belief, or preference” is merely evidence of ignorance, and therefore irrelevance. -
One’s experience is just a matter of ignorance vs knowledge. The truth or falseh
One’s experience is just a matter of ignorance vs knowledge. The truth or falsehood, possibility or impossibility, gain or loss, volition or non-volition(of others) are all decidable whether you’re ignorant or knowledgeable. Using “principle, belief, or preference” is merely evidence of ignorance, and therefore irrelevance. -
The Dead Don’t Feel
If emotional experiences are a problem – an impediment to excellence, competition, transcendence, – then it is an easy problem to solve: the dead don’t feel, now do they? 😉 ( Emotions are not a test of anything. ) -
The Dead Don’t Feel
If emotional experiences are a problem – an impediment to excellence, competition, transcendence, – then it is an easy problem to solve: the dead don’t feel, now do they? 😉 ( Emotions are not a test of anything. ) -
Perfect Government
We had the Best System of Government (Perfect Government) and we blew it: 1) Nomocracy (Rule of Law by Natural Law of Torts: Reciprocity) 2) A Hereditary Monarchy as Judge of Last Resort, and custodian of territory, institutions, organizations, families, and individuals. …. A State(Foreign Relations) Organization, …. A Professional Military, …. A Professional Judiciary, and …. A Treasury of Last Resort. 3) A Market for Commons consisting of: …. Regional Nobility(Persistent families) serving as a normative Supreme Court …. A House of Industry(Commons) for those with responsibilities. …. A Church Serving as a House of Labor and family. 4) A Local (Democratic) Polity(private partnership) of Property Owners …. A Militia and Sheriffs …. Voluntary Civic Organizations 5) The Nuclear Family. And Family and Nation as subject of policy 6) The Individual and Property as the subject of law. Really. You can’t do much better than that for a ‘steady state’. Because under war or stress the organization can switch from market rule to military rule (Fascism), and under plenty the organization can switch from market rule to (contingent and temporary) redistribution. The central probelm with all forms of government is nothing more complex than the demographics of the polity. The larger the demonstrated underclass, the less effective a government and the more risk involved and the more limited are one’s options. The smaller the demonstrated underclass, the more effective a government and the less risk involved and the more plentiful (variable) are one’s options. Market governments cause a natural eugenic change in the distribution, while creating the greatest adaptability, rate of innovation(competition) and highest standard of living. But they require a militia or at least a dedicated military to bring into being. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
Perfect Government
We had the Best System of Government (Perfect Government) and we blew it: 1) Nomocracy (Rule of Law by Natural Law of Torts: Reciprocity) 2) A Hereditary Monarchy as Judge of Last Resort, and custodian of territory, institutions, organizations, families, and individuals. …. A State(Foreign Relations) Organization, …. A Professional Military, …. A Professional Judiciary, and …. A Treasury of Last Resort. 3) A Market for Commons consisting of: …. Regional Nobility(Persistent families) serving as a normative Supreme Court …. A House of Industry(Commons) for those with responsibilities. …. A Church Serving as a House of Labor and family. 4) A Local (Democratic) Polity(private partnership) of Property Owners …. A Militia and Sheriffs …. Voluntary Civic Organizations 5) The Nuclear Family. And Family and Nation as subject of policy 6) The Individual and Property as the subject of law. Really. You can’t do much better than that for a ‘steady state’. Because under war or stress the organization can switch from market rule to military rule (Fascism), and under plenty the organization can switch from market rule to (contingent and temporary) redistribution. The central probelm with all forms of government is nothing more complex than the demographics of the polity. The larger the demonstrated underclass, the less effective a government and the more risk involved and the more limited are one’s options. The smaller the demonstrated underclass, the more effective a government and the less risk involved and the more plentiful (variable) are one’s options. Market governments cause a natural eugenic change in the distribution, while creating the greatest adaptability, rate of innovation(competition) and highest standard of living. But they require a militia or at least a dedicated military to bring into being. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
Truth: Our Mindfulness
—“Pushing the truth agenda discards the social one – even if it means the social isolation of the source of that truth: the truth-speaker. For the autistic male, this is no dilemma. We keep the crazies outside, sanity and peace inside.”— William L. Benge