[N]ow, without protection all of their accumulated potential – what we call assets – from the imposition of costs, what do people DO? Not what do we WISH they did – because that is fantasy – but what do people do? They retaliate. That’s what they do. If they can’t retaliate they constrain their risk. If their risk constraint is sufficient to inhibit their consumption, then they leave. If enough inability to retaliate occurs, and enough risk constraint occurs, and enough deprivation of consumption occurs, people leave systematically and stop coming systematically. You don’t choose the level of suppression necessary to form a stateless polity: THE MARKET FOR HUMAN COOPERATION DOES. Not sure why this is complicated for a libertine to grasp. But the market determines membership in a exitable and enterable polity. As such people will choose what is in their interest to cooperate with, boycott what is not in their interest to cooperate with, and destroy what is in their interest to destroy. This is natural law.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Disease Gradients Impede Cooperation
(Via Francesco Principi)
“The xenophobia expressed in environments with high pathogen severity creates barriers to intergroup cooperation. These barriers cause greater poverty in environments with increased pathogen severity, in addition to the direct effects of disease on the human capital that is essential to economic growth. Xenophobic groups in competition for resources are unwilling to resolve this competition through cooperative means, and they are more likely to resort to violent conflict.”
This idea has legs.
-
Disease Gradients Impede Cooperation
(Via Francesco Principi)
“The xenophobia expressed in environments with high pathogen severity creates barriers to intergroup cooperation. These barriers cause greater poverty in environments with increased pathogen severity, in addition to the direct effects of disease on the human capital that is essential to economic growth. Xenophobic groups in competition for resources are unwilling to resolve this competition through cooperative means, and they are more likely to resort to violent conflict.”
This idea has legs.
-
Classification by Advertising Rather Than Content
[W]e have this tragic categorial bias in the west wherein we classify religions by their advertising rather than their content.
-
Classification by Advertising Rather Than Content
[W]e have this tragic categorial bias in the west wherein we classify religions by their advertising rather than their content.
-
Eli on Love (Great Post)
[I] think that love (noun) refers to the condition in which one’s happiness depends on another’s. And therefore to love (verb) must mean to act in a manner consistent with this condition prevailing. If we adopt these as our definitions, then it becomes obvious, upon cursory examination, that we can never accurately describe actual “love” (either the noun or the verb) as either universal or unconditional for long. For example, unrequited love would tend to consume, either its host, or its host’s willingness to continue entertaining it; for it entails costs with certainty, but holds out no sure promise of benefits, and would be easy to take advantage of. But reciprocal love may prove (under some conditions) sustainable or even (under others) productive. Curt Doolittle made a status the other day, or perhaps a comment, wherein he opined that the statement “I love you” must resolve operationally to something like “I promise that if you test the hypothesis that ‘I love you’ you will not find it untrue.” So we can resolve this still further to say that “I love you” means “I promise that if you test the hypothesis that my happiness depends on your own against my actions, you will not find it untrue.” —Eli Harman
-
Eli on Love (Great Post)
[I] think that love (noun) refers to the condition in which one’s happiness depends on another’s. And therefore to love (verb) must mean to act in a manner consistent with this condition prevailing. If we adopt these as our definitions, then it becomes obvious, upon cursory examination, that we can never accurately describe actual “love” (either the noun or the verb) as either universal or unconditional for long. For example, unrequited love would tend to consume, either its host, or its host’s willingness to continue entertaining it; for it entails costs with certainty, but holds out no sure promise of benefits, and would be easy to take advantage of. But reciprocal love may prove (under some conditions) sustainable or even (under others) productive. Curt Doolittle made a status the other day, or perhaps a comment, wherein he opined that the statement “I love you” must resolve operationally to something like “I promise that if you test the hypothesis that ‘I love you’ you will not find it untrue.” So we can resolve this still further to say that “I love you” means “I promise that if you test the hypothesis that my happiness depends on your own against my actions, you will not find it untrue.” —Eli Harman
-
WHAT CONSTITUTES A FACT? OUTING AMATEURS AS FREE RIDERS
—-“As if Jim could answer that without first RECOGNIZING the FACT of your question.”—-
[T]his is an interesting example, so lets use it. You observe the text, determine the question, can make sense of it, and therefore determine it exists. This is a very simple statement. But the reason it is a fact is that you cannot find evidence that it does not exist, or is not comprehensible as a question. Observation -> “recognition” -> free association -> hypothesis -> test -> theory -> test -> Law This sequence (popper’s problem->theory->test cycle) is what our brains do. It’s inescapable. So you can indeed recognize what you believe is a fact. Yes. We construct facts by testing the results of our observations against the possibility of falsehood. You use the term ‘recognizing’ which means ‘correspondence’. But correspondence must survive criticism. Ergo a fact is the result of survival from criticism. Now, this is what scientists do, and this is the meaning of fact in philosophy and science. If you want to use analogies and non operational arguments to justify your usage, then as long as I an translate your colloquialism into truthful statements I can attest that you MEAN the truth mean and intend to convey the truth even if you lack the ability (skill) to speak truthfully (scientifically). Now if you move from reductio examples to the court of disputes how often are people’s observations and subsequent testimony true? Well, we know from both a vast body of experiments, and the change in testimony after the invention of photography, and then video, that our ‘recognition’ is plagued with falsehood. So there is a big difference between recognition (an hypothesis), and a fact (a theory) because that difference There is a minor difference between a fact (theory of a description of an observation) and a theory (a description of a general rule that explains many observations). But the epistemological process is identical. We observe, identify (recognize and therefore hypothesize), test (criticize and produce theory), and repeat this process over and over again. (See “On Intelligence” by Jeff Hawkins for accessible research, and explanatory model of synthesis in layers of the cortex). This distinction is important because it is not the identity(recognition) that converts an observation to a fact, but the criticism (survival) of the observation that converts it to a fact. This is why we engage in a distribution of labor in research because we are so bad at testing observations and constructing theories that we need our own judgements tested – IF WE SEEK TRUTH. Now, the crux of YOUR argument is that one only needs sufficient confidence in correspondence with reality in order to act, and that is because one (often) bears the cost of one’s (frequent) error. It is when our actions affect any polity or group that the externalities of our errors ask us to judge not our own confidence in our observations and testing, but wether others will retaliate (at worst), ignore (as usual), or reward with opportunities of cooperation (at best) the externalities caused by our actions. So the sufficiency of our judgements in what we determine action is dependent upon the externalities produced by those judgements. What most libertines attempt to do is tell others that they do not wish to account for externalities produced by our actions, and that others ‘should tolerate’ the externalities produced by our actions. When people demonstrably do not do that. They retaliate against any and all imposition of costs on their potentials (inventory of property en toto), and if one is not contributing to them by compensatory means they will not tolerate it. So this is why the NAP/IVP is insufficient for rational action. It is insufficient for the prevention of retaliation, and the boycott of opportunity from others. And in fact it is not only insufficient but it is an attempt to justify parasitic actions caused by the externalization of costs, and justify the non contribution to the commons despite the fact that any general rule of behavior must be adopted as a common contract by consent and therefore exists as a commons. One does not choose the incentives of others. They merely exist as surely as the earth itself. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
-
WHAT CONSTITUTES A FACT? OUTING AMATEURS AS FREE RIDERS
—-“As if Jim could answer that without first RECOGNIZING the FACT of your question.”—-
[T]his is an interesting example, so lets use it. You observe the text, determine the question, can make sense of it, and therefore determine it exists. This is a very simple statement. But the reason it is a fact is that you cannot find evidence that it does not exist, or is not comprehensible as a question. Observation -> “recognition” -> free association -> hypothesis -> test -> theory -> test -> Law This sequence (popper’s problem->theory->test cycle) is what our brains do. It’s inescapable. So you can indeed recognize what you believe is a fact. Yes. We construct facts by testing the results of our observations against the possibility of falsehood. You use the term ‘recognizing’ which means ‘correspondence’. But correspondence must survive criticism. Ergo a fact is the result of survival from criticism. Now, this is what scientists do, and this is the meaning of fact in philosophy and science. If you want to use analogies and non operational arguments to justify your usage, then as long as I an translate your colloquialism into truthful statements I can attest that you MEAN the truth mean and intend to convey the truth even if you lack the ability (skill) to speak truthfully (scientifically). Now if you move from reductio examples to the court of disputes how often are people’s observations and subsequent testimony true? Well, we know from both a vast body of experiments, and the change in testimony after the invention of photography, and then video, that our ‘recognition’ is plagued with falsehood. So there is a big difference between recognition (an hypothesis), and a fact (a theory) because that difference There is a minor difference between a fact (theory of a description of an observation) and a theory (a description of a general rule that explains many observations). But the epistemological process is identical. We observe, identify (recognize and therefore hypothesize), test (criticize and produce theory), and repeat this process over and over again. (See “On Intelligence” by Jeff Hawkins for accessible research, and explanatory model of synthesis in layers of the cortex). This distinction is important because it is not the identity(recognition) that converts an observation to a fact, but the criticism (survival) of the observation that converts it to a fact. This is why we engage in a distribution of labor in research because we are so bad at testing observations and constructing theories that we need our own judgements tested – IF WE SEEK TRUTH. Now, the crux of YOUR argument is that one only needs sufficient confidence in correspondence with reality in order to act, and that is because one (often) bears the cost of one’s (frequent) error. It is when our actions affect any polity or group that the externalities of our errors ask us to judge not our own confidence in our observations and testing, but wether others will retaliate (at worst), ignore (as usual), or reward with opportunities of cooperation (at best) the externalities caused by our actions. So the sufficiency of our judgements in what we determine action is dependent upon the externalities produced by those judgements. What most libertines attempt to do is tell others that they do not wish to account for externalities produced by our actions, and that others ‘should tolerate’ the externalities produced by our actions. When people demonstrably do not do that. They retaliate against any and all imposition of costs on their potentials (inventory of property en toto), and if one is not contributing to them by compensatory means they will not tolerate it. So this is why the NAP/IVP is insufficient for rational action. It is insufficient for the prevention of retaliation, and the boycott of opportunity from others. And in fact it is not only insufficient but it is an attempt to justify parasitic actions caused by the externalization of costs, and justify the non contribution to the commons despite the fact that any general rule of behavior must be adopted as a common contract by consent and therefore exists as a commons. One does not choose the incentives of others. They merely exist as surely as the earth itself. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
-
Debating Useful Idiots of All Stripes
(snippet of debate we can learn from) [I] almost always operate under the assumption that genes do the talking and that the rational mind needs assistance in overcoming the influence of accumulated cognitive bias in favor of one’s reproductive strategy. So I suspect you are just the usual victim of WISHFUL THINKING and need rescuing. Because I don’t see evidence that you’re knowledgeable enough to engage in FRAUD. And I don’t see evidence that you’re emotionally neutral and openly skeptical of your opinion so I do not think you ERR. As such, you are the perfect target for cosmopolitan deception: an obscurant and complex justification for whatever your cognitive bias: socialist, libertine, or neocon. You are a ‘useful idiot’ for the anti-western anti-aristocratic pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational, religions. The great lie version two. This time in multiple class sizes: socialist, libertine, and neocon. It’s not so bad that one is fooled – we all are. What’s bad is maintaining a bias that’s increasingly, obviously, false, because it was a bad but exciting investment.