When arguing under natural law it is not so important that you master all the contracts (legislations) and processes (regulations). The reason being that legislations and regulations are always open to revision or refutation if they violate the One Law. So while many layers of contract and regulation may result in conformity to the One Law, it is also possible that they may result in violation of the One Law. And the only way we know that is through FULL ACCOUNTING.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Realities of IQ in Business
(No jimmy, not everyone can join the upper middle class) People above 140 come up with new concepts. People above 130 come up with new business ideas. People above 120 exploit niches in markets with existing ideas. People above 110 work harder than others are willing to at capturing marginal opportunities at lower profit, that better companies are unwilling to chase. People above 100 might, if they’re lucky manage well. People below 100 do the work of bringing others’ ideas to fruition. People below 85 are too difficult and expensive to train to work on ideas.
(If you thought of it, and you arent’ in the 130+ category, someone thought of it already, and decided it wasn’t possible, or worth it. on the other hand, if you are willing to serve niche customers who you can empathize with that is something you can turn into money. But you must get customers, you cannot attract them.) -
Realities of IQ in Business
(No jimmy, not everyone can join the upper middle class) People above 140 come up with new concepts. People above 130 come up with new business ideas. People above 120 exploit niches in markets with existing ideas. People above 110 work harder than others are willing to at capturing marginal opportunities at lower profit, that better companies are unwilling to chase. People above 100 might, if they’re lucky manage well. People below 100 do the work of bringing others’ ideas to fruition. People below 85 are too difficult and expensive to train to work on ideas.
(If you thought of it, and you arent’ in the 130+ category, someone thought of it already, and decided it wasn’t possible, or worth it. on the other hand, if you are willing to serve niche customers who you can empathize with that is something you can turn into money. But you must get customers, you cannot attract them.) -
Why Are We Not Better Off Killing, Dispossessing Or Enslaving You?
WHY ARE WE NOT BETTER OFF KILLING, DISPOSSESSING OR ENSLAVING YOU? The fact that I don’t kill you, enslave you, or dispossess you, and instead cooperate with you for mutual benefit, does not include the presumption that I will sacrifice for you. If I must sacrifice for you then I am better of killing, enslaving, or dispossessing you. You presume too much. contribution to commons, and insurance against vicissitudes of nature, are not the same as redistribution allowing you to increase your consumption and reproduction.
Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
Why Are We Not Better Off Killing, Dispossessing Or Enslaving You?
WHY ARE WE NOT BETTER OFF KILLING, DISPOSSESSING OR ENSLAVING YOU? The fact that I don’t kill you, enslave you, or dispossess you, and instead cooperate with you for mutual benefit, does not include the presumption that I will sacrifice for you. If I must sacrifice for you then I am better of killing, enslaving, or dispossessing you. You presume too much. contribution to commons, and insurance against vicissitudes of nature, are not the same as redistribution allowing you to increase your consumption and reproduction.
Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
Morals Reflect Genetic Distance
MORALS ARE NOT RELATIVE, BUT REFLECT GENETIC DISTANCE We can and do certainly possess different moral biases, and we can and do certainly possess normative moral biases. This is true. But that does not mean that moral differences are not decidable in matters of conflict. We can use moral biases to seek allies. We can trade across moral biases when we have common interests. And we can decide moral between moral biases when we are in conflict. that means that there exist an objectively decidable morality, but that each of us requires reproductive moral allies, uses moral competitors when necessary, and resorts to objective morality in matters of conflict resolution.
There is no such thing as moral relativism. We possess moral biases, both genetic, familial, and normative. We seek allies, trading partners, and judges in matters of conflict. It is entirely possible to judge within families, within norms, within trading partners, and within competitors, by objective, scientific, rational means: natural law of non-imposition. We may not like this but then knowing that such decidability exists at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor ‘distances’ requires us only to understand the criteria at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor distances. We sacrifice for kin and competitors will not bear sacrifice. We need not benefit from kin but we must benefit from trading partners. And so on. The greater the genetic and moral distance the more objective the criteria of decidability. But those differences remain decidable. Why? Because the only by which we can escape retaliation and preserve cooperation is that of the non-imposition of costs upon one another. -
Morals Reflect Genetic Distance
MORALS ARE NOT RELATIVE, BUT REFLECT GENETIC DISTANCE We can and do certainly possess different moral biases, and we can and do certainly possess normative moral biases. This is true. But that does not mean that moral differences are not decidable in matters of conflict. We can use moral biases to seek allies. We can trade across moral biases when we have common interests. And we can decide moral between moral biases when we are in conflict. that means that there exist an objectively decidable morality, but that each of us requires reproductive moral allies, uses moral competitors when necessary, and resorts to objective morality in matters of conflict resolution.
There is no such thing as moral relativism. We possess moral biases, both genetic, familial, and normative. We seek allies, trading partners, and judges in matters of conflict. It is entirely possible to judge within families, within norms, within trading partners, and within competitors, by objective, scientific, rational means: natural law of non-imposition. We may not like this but then knowing that such decidability exists at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor ‘distances’ requires us only to understand the criteria at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor distances. We sacrifice for kin and competitors will not bear sacrifice. We need not benefit from kin but we must benefit from trading partners. And so on. The greater the genetic and moral distance the more objective the criteria of decidability. But those differences remain decidable. Why? Because the only by which we can escape retaliation and preserve cooperation is that of the non-imposition of costs upon one another. -
A Few Personal Notes on Rorty
5-Literature 4-Religion 3-Philosophy (Moral Entrepreneurs) 2-Intellectual History 1-History 0-Law 1-Science —Curt Tautology(necessary), Proof(possible), Rational(potential), Literature(meaningful) —Curt We are all relying upon narratives that provide decidability for the purpose of pursuing allies in the achievement of a condition, not truth. We only rely upon a truthful narrative when it assists us attracting allies in the achievement of a condition. –Curt Shinto when we’re born, Confucian when we’re adolescent, Christian when we’re married, Buddhist when we die. — Japanese Saying Rationality – in that one consents to be persuaded – is a social virtue not a human faculty. Reason is a human faculty. Rationality is a moral virtue – a property of cooperation. — Rorty restated by Doolittle “It’s not a surprise that religion, democracy, and science, are in conflict: power.”–Rorty “Another sense of philosophy describes how various ideas fit together.” — Rorty. Well, I would say that philosophy consists of logic (necessity), criticism (science), integration(rationality), advocacy(moral literature), and imagining (fantasy literature). And that religion conflates advocacy, imagining, and Law (force). –Curt “if we take care of education and democratic freedom then truth will take care of itself”–Dewey. Well, it turns out that Dewey/Rorty are wrong. Just the opposite. – Curt Judaism is, like American pragmatism, a feminine philosophy, in that consequences to the commons are irrelevant. All that matters is the consequences to those collectively extant in the moment. — Curt Rorty makes the progressive error of the steady-state. We always fight the red queen. We have lost that under the temporary prosperity of industrialism. But the red queen has shifted just as crime has shifted. We compete against economies and resources and institutions, not against farming and territory and demographics. — Curt What objectively right vs objectively better = Survival of your gene pool. It is objectively right, and objectively better. — Curt
-
A Few Personal Notes on Rorty
5-Literature 4-Religion 3-Philosophy (Moral Entrepreneurs) 2-Intellectual History 1-History 0-Law 1-Science —Curt Tautology(necessary), Proof(possible), Rational(potential), Literature(meaningful) —Curt We are all relying upon narratives that provide decidability for the purpose of pursuing allies in the achievement of a condition, not truth. We only rely upon a truthful narrative when it assists us attracting allies in the achievement of a condition. –Curt Shinto when we’re born, Confucian when we’re adolescent, Christian when we’re married, Buddhist when we die. — Japanese Saying Rationality – in that one consents to be persuaded – is a social virtue not a human faculty. Reason is a human faculty. Rationality is a moral virtue – a property of cooperation. — Rorty restated by Doolittle “It’s not a surprise that religion, democracy, and science, are in conflict: power.”–Rorty “Another sense of philosophy describes how various ideas fit together.” — Rorty. Well, I would say that philosophy consists of logic (necessity), criticism (science), integration(rationality), advocacy(moral literature), and imagining (fantasy literature). And that religion conflates advocacy, imagining, and Law (force). –Curt “if we take care of education and democratic freedom then truth will take care of itself”–Dewey. Well, it turns out that Dewey/Rorty are wrong. Just the opposite. – Curt Judaism is, like American pragmatism, a feminine philosophy, in that consequences to the commons are irrelevant. All that matters is the consequences to those collectively extant in the moment. — Curt Rorty makes the progressive error of the steady-state. We always fight the red queen. We have lost that under the temporary prosperity of industrialism. But the red queen has shifted just as crime has shifted. We compete against economies and resources and institutions, not against farming and territory and demographics. — Curt What objectively right vs objectively better = Survival of your gene pool. It is objectively right, and objectively better. — Curt
-
Non-Conflationary West
The west is deconflationary. We do not confuse methods of arguments, disciplines that make use of them, institutions that provide and manage them. We maintain a competition, and circumvent any monopoly: *power*. |— LIMITS ——- > UTILITY ——–> GOALS/IDEALS–>
- LIMITS: Law, legal jurisdiction – secular jurisdiction – a discovered science of dispute resolution.
- UTILITY: Trade – practical jurisdiction – a learned craft of pragmatism.
- IDEALS: Matters spiritual – are literary – and an imagined art of aspiration.
Islam and Judaism are ‘simpler’ methods than western. simpler than Chinese. And suitable for a people less intelligent —Curt