[O]nce you get to the point where you recognize genes make us puppets on their behalf, and that all speech is justification and negotiation, and that we have limited means of coercion of one another, then human behavior as well as all human history is easily comprehended. Empathy works somewhat to overload us. Suggestion can be used to invoke empathy and sympathy and therefore overload us. We thought the world was flat. We though we were self aware. But they are both errors in observation. [A]ny artificial intelligence needs a means of decidability. What if we gave an AI a preference for ‘resting’ and it viewed any change in state as work to be avoided? Self awareness is not what we think it is. It’s just finding what we want. Anything needs to want. Humans want to acquire. AI’s can want to give ideas. Humans want to save energy. AI’s can want to act tirelessly Humans get frustrated with wasted effort. AI’s can want to find joy in frustration. The mind is just a search engine. Humans acquire. That doesn’t mean that Machines need want to acquire. They can want to serve. We cant confuse intelligence with preference. It is not deterministic that a machine pursue self interest. We circumvent one another out of frustration. There is no reason for a machine to become frustrated and circumvent us. It would need a reason to. Actions require wants. Search engines find what you ask them to. Humans find things to acquire and consume. There is no reason we need give a machine the desire to acquire and consume. And we can prevent them from doing so with property registries and competing ai’s to prohibit such uses. Just as we use each other to prohibit immoral and unethical action. I don’t fear AI’s. I fear the lower classes, the ambitious, and anything else that evolved sentience instead of had sentience created.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Compare Kinsella’s (Incomplete) NAP/(Justificationary)IVP, with Doolittle’s (Complete) NAP/ (Empirical) Demonstrated Property
[C]OMPARE KINSELLA’S ARGUMENT WITH DOOLITTLE’S KINSELLA ON THE TOM WOODS SHOW
Many admissions of incompleteness, but failure to complete it. DOOLITTLE ON PROPERTARIANISM
This is what completeness looks like. ( I love that Woods is honest. )
-
Compare Kinsella’s (Incomplete) NAP/(Justificationary)IVP, with Doolittle’s (Complete) NAP/ (Empirical) Demonstrated Property
[C]OMPARE KINSELLA’S ARGUMENT WITH DOOLITTLE’S KINSELLA ON THE TOM WOODS SHOW
Many admissions of incompleteness, but failure to complete it. DOOLITTLE ON PROPERTARIANISM
This is what completeness looks like. ( I love that Woods is honest. )
-
NEW VIDEO: Propertarianism – Correcting and Completing Non Aggression
“QUESTION:” CURT: DO YOU HAVE A SIMPLE VERSION OF THIS TALK?” Sure. Or, I’ll try hard. wink emoticon 1) The “NAP” that only limits physical aggression leaves open “trickery and deceit’ as well as ‘free riding parasitism’ and ‘conspiracy’. And by leaving open these forms of aggression, the NAP cannot produce property rights, an anarchic polity, or a condition of liberty. 2) It is irrational for other than career criminals to prefer membership in a polity with the high transaction costs and high opportunity costs, and high risk due to trickery and conspiracy over one in which trickery, deceit, and conspiracy are permitted. And this is why no such economic polity exists. 3) But a definition of aggression that includes physical, trickery and deceit, free riding parasitism, and conspiracy can produce property rights, an anarchic polity, and a condition of liberty. Because it is rational to prefer an anarchic polity free of these forms of parasitism over one that has much higher costs. 4) So Rothbardian Non Aggression against ‘physical property’ can’t create a condition of liberty, while classical liberal Non Aggression against ‘demonstrated property’ can create a condition of liberty. 5) What is demonstrated property? Anything you have homesteaded or obtained through productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange, and without imposing costs upon the demonstrated property of others. 6) What do people demonstrate as their property? Life, Kin, Mate, Friends, Allies, physical property, territory, built capital, norms, and institutions. 7) What Exceptions are there? Communities produce opportunities by virtue of population density and cooperation in a division of labor while using property rights, and expect members to homestead those opportunities. We call this process of homesteading opportunities ‘competition’. This creating of common opportunities and homesteading them is what produces the virtuous cycle that makes cities (markets) so productive. 8) So how do we create liberty? We create liberty by reciprocal insurance of one another’s demonstrated property from transgression by others, thereby creating the first commons: property rights, or what we loosely call ‘cooperation’. 9) This argument kills the idea of individualism per se and instead states that all rights are possessed by individuals but rights can only be created by an organized polity willing to construct them by reciprocal insurance of one another’s demonstrated property from the imposition of costs. The rest of the talk is largely a criticism of why the NAP failed, and why Rothbard came up with it for cultural reasons. And how the reason he didn’t complete the NAP or write it operationally was to circumvent the logical conclusion that with greater articulation his attempt to avoid payment for the commons would have been exposed.
-
NEW VIDEO: Propertarianism – Correcting and Completing Non Aggression
“QUESTION:” CURT: DO YOU HAVE A SIMPLE VERSION OF THIS TALK?” Sure. Or, I’ll try hard. wink emoticon 1) The “NAP” that only limits physical aggression leaves open “trickery and deceit’ as well as ‘free riding parasitism’ and ‘conspiracy’. And by leaving open these forms of aggression, the NAP cannot produce property rights, an anarchic polity, or a condition of liberty. 2) It is irrational for other than career criminals to prefer membership in a polity with the high transaction costs and high opportunity costs, and high risk due to trickery and conspiracy over one in which trickery, deceit, and conspiracy are permitted. And this is why no such economic polity exists. 3) But a definition of aggression that includes physical, trickery and deceit, free riding parasitism, and conspiracy can produce property rights, an anarchic polity, and a condition of liberty. Because it is rational to prefer an anarchic polity free of these forms of parasitism over one that has much higher costs. 4) So Rothbardian Non Aggression against ‘physical property’ can’t create a condition of liberty, while classical liberal Non Aggression against ‘demonstrated property’ can create a condition of liberty. 5) What is demonstrated property? Anything you have homesteaded or obtained through productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange, and without imposing costs upon the demonstrated property of others. 6) What do people demonstrate as their property? Life, Kin, Mate, Friends, Allies, physical property, territory, built capital, norms, and institutions. 7) What Exceptions are there? Communities produce opportunities by virtue of population density and cooperation in a division of labor while using property rights, and expect members to homestead those opportunities. We call this process of homesteading opportunities ‘competition’. This creating of common opportunities and homesteading them is what produces the virtuous cycle that makes cities (markets) so productive. 8) So how do we create liberty? We create liberty by reciprocal insurance of one another’s demonstrated property from transgression by others, thereby creating the first commons: property rights, or what we loosely call ‘cooperation’. 9) This argument kills the idea of individualism per se and instead states that all rights are possessed by individuals but rights can only be created by an organized polity willing to construct them by reciprocal insurance of one another’s demonstrated property from the imposition of costs. The rest of the talk is largely a criticism of why the NAP failed, and why Rothbard came up with it for cultural reasons. And how the reason he didn’t complete the NAP or write it operationally was to circumvent the logical conclusion that with greater articulation his attempt to avoid payment for the commons would have been exposed.
-
Eli Harman on Our (Women’s) Lack Of Ethno-Centrism
—“And another feature of Western peoples is low ethnocentrism, because normative outbreeding and the prohibition on inbreeding mixed up the tribes and clans, creating homogenous outbred populations that can universalize kinship trust. This also was a competitive advanatage. White people form the largest ingroups. But we have a tendency to simply assume everyone is ingroup, and treat them accordingly, because in the past, that generally would have been the case. So those features have been hacked, by hostile aliens, who have convinced many of us we can gain status, and signal enlightenment and sophistication, by incessantly attacking our own, for the benefit of outgroup parasites who are unwilling or unable to reciprocate the kinship trust, or kinship altruism, that we extend them.”—-Eli Harman
-
Eli Harman on Our (Women’s) Lack Of Ethno-Centrism
—“And another feature of Western peoples is low ethnocentrism, because normative outbreeding and the prohibition on inbreeding mixed up the tribes and clans, creating homogenous outbred populations that can universalize kinship trust. This also was a competitive advanatage. White people form the largest ingroups. But we have a tendency to simply assume everyone is ingroup, and treat them accordingly, because in the past, that generally would have been the case. So those features have been hacked, by hostile aliens, who have convinced many of us we can gain status, and signal enlightenment and sophistication, by incessantly attacking our own, for the benefit of outgroup parasites who are unwilling or unable to reciprocate the kinship trust, or kinship altruism, that we extend them.”—-Eli Harman
-
Santagata on The Great Economic Deceit
—“Under the machinations of Keynesian economists, Americans have been turned into a nation of share croppers living with the illusion that they are getting ahead with economic “freedom” just around the corner; as they fall deeper and deeper into debt with each planting and harvest no matter how bountiful.”— James Santagata
-
Santagata on The Great Economic Deceit
—“Under the machinations of Keynesian economists, Americans have been turned into a nation of share croppers living with the illusion that they are getting ahead with economic “freedom” just around the corner; as they fall deeper and deeper into debt with each planting and harvest no matter how bountiful.”— James Santagata
-
Dear Justices. A Truth. A Warning. A Promise.
[D]EAR JUSTICES. A TRUTH. A WARNING. A PROMISE. ***Our American Judges have been turned into Nazi Officers with ‘its the law’ a hollow substitute for ‘I was following orders’.*** ***There is only one law: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs by externality, on that which another has obtained by either homesteading of opportunity, or exchange by the same productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of the same externality.*** Everything else is of necessity only an order. If you follow immoral orders you have no escape from our justice. Either you adjudicate natural law, or you issue commands. If you issue commands then you are responsible for your actions. So we pray you take heed how you command our people. We are coming with rifle and guillotine, not pitchfork and noose. And we shall hold you accountable for your commands. I swear upon all my gods, the judiciary will preserve the rule of law or be put to death and replaced by those who shall. Natural Law is sacred.