Theme: Agency

  • People testify truthfully. Everything else is a set of symbols. A recipe. A proo

    People testify truthfully. Everything else is a set of symbols. A recipe. A proof. An algorithm. But truth is from man.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-23 12:07:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768057052598038529

    Reply addressees: @Lord_Keynes2

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768055481336160257


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768055481336160257

  • we are slaves. we are well fed slaves. but we are slaves none the less. If you c

    we are slaves. we are well fed slaves. but we are slaves none the less. If you cannot advance your genes you’re enslaved.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-23 11:19:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768044930220584961

    Reply addressees: @PoseidonAwoke

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768044788419534848


    IN REPLY TO:

    @PoseidonAwoke

    @curtdoolittle Wow. Yes. This line of thought. Do we work for the economy, or does it work for us?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768044788419534848

  • Likelihood vs. Frequency

    [M]any people conflate likelihood with frequency. For example, they point out how infrequent Muslim terror attacks are and they make fun of you for even mentioning such an unlikely possibility. There are far more likely ways for you to die, car accident, petty crime, cancer, heart disease, etc… etc… So why are you worried about Islamic terrorism? You’re just an old fuddy duddy, and probably a bigot. But the likelihood of Muslim terror attacks is not in question. We know now for a certainty that as long as Muslims and westerners continue to mix and mingle, a small but significant minority of Muslims will attack western governments, infrastructure, military, and civilians (but especially civilians) with the aim of inflicting as many casualties or as much damage as possible. Unless something changes, however, those attacks will remain infrequent enough that you probably won’t be caught up in one. But something IS changing, the number and proportion of Muslims in western nations is changing. The number and proportion of Muslims in western counties is increasing. The ONLY reason anyone mentions the infrequency of their terror attacks (under the duplicitous guise of unlikeliness) is to JUSTIFY increasing their numbers still further. And so the frequency of attacks will rise. And your likelihood of dying or being maimed in one will rise with it. And if the number and proportion of Muslims in western nations keeps increasing, they will eventually have options other than to engage in random attacks with a near certainty of being caught or killed themselves. There will be other objects within their reach, supremacy, rule, subjugation, victory. And we can be just as certain that they will reach for those as we are certain now that they will continue to attack us, because that is their aim. They have said so. This is what those who sow this confusion advocate. This is what those who peddle this lie demand. They have CHOSEN treason to the west and its destruction of their own free will and they have had every reason and opportunity to KNOW that this is what they were choosing. Whether the west prevails, or Islam, their fate is sealed; unless they repent of their lies and make good the damage they have wrought. REPOSTED FROM: Eli Harman https://hyperborial.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/likelihood-vs-frequency/

  • Likelihood vs. Frequency

    [M]any people conflate likelihood with frequency. For example, they point out how infrequent Muslim terror attacks are and they make fun of you for even mentioning such an unlikely possibility. There are far more likely ways for you to die, car accident, petty crime, cancer, heart disease, etc… etc… So why are you worried about Islamic terrorism? You’re just an old fuddy duddy, and probably a bigot. But the likelihood of Muslim terror attacks is not in question. We know now for a certainty that as long as Muslims and westerners continue to mix and mingle, a small but significant minority of Muslims will attack western governments, infrastructure, military, and civilians (but especially civilians) with the aim of inflicting as many casualties or as much damage as possible. Unless something changes, however, those attacks will remain infrequent enough that you probably won’t be caught up in one. But something IS changing, the number and proportion of Muslims in western nations is changing. The number and proportion of Muslims in western counties is increasing. The ONLY reason anyone mentions the infrequency of their terror attacks (under the duplicitous guise of unlikeliness) is to JUSTIFY increasing their numbers still further. And so the frequency of attacks will rise. And your likelihood of dying or being maimed in one will rise with it. And if the number and proportion of Muslims in western nations keeps increasing, they will eventually have options other than to engage in random attacks with a near certainty of being caught or killed themselves. There will be other objects within their reach, supremacy, rule, subjugation, victory. And we can be just as certain that they will reach for those as we are certain now that they will continue to attack us, because that is their aim. They have said so. This is what those who sow this confusion advocate. This is what those who peddle this lie demand. They have CHOSEN treason to the west and its destruction of their own free will and they have had every reason and opportunity to KNOW that this is what they were choosing. Whether the west prevails, or Islam, their fate is sealed; unless they repent of their lies and make good the damage they have wrought. REPOSTED FROM: Eli Harman https://hyperborial.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/likelihood-vs-frequency/

  • “God is a hedge by the ir-responsible against the failures of the self, providin

    —“God is a hedge by the ir-responsible against the failures of the self, providing absolution consistent with time preferences, and an excuse not to go seek achievement of their capacity.”— John Jost

    Ouch. Yes that is an excuse. A use we put our gods to.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-22 08:46:00 UTC

  • SOROS V HAYEK, AND WHY When where Soros disagrees with Hayek he relies on the cr

    SOROS V HAYEK, AND WHY

    When where Soros disagrees with Hayek he relies on the criticism of the rational actor hypothesis, saying that people do not in fact act this way.

    But here again we have hayek as a social scientist seeking rule of law, versus soros as a financeer seeking discretionary rule.

    The difference in the western heroic tradition and the jewish tradition is illustrated once again: we peers may not interfere with the sovereignty of other peers with actions that interfere with their plans.

    Ergo: rule of law.

    Soros, as a cosmopolitan, seeks only to increase transactions regardless of the impact on the peerage, and the consequences to intertemporal capital.

    So yet again we see the metaphysics of the Aryans’ no harm to the commons, vs the Cosmopolitans’ maximum consumption.

    Hayek’s advocates do not know how to criticize Soros.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-22 07:48:00 UTC

  • My name is Orhan. And I am a fool. I do not generally mind being a fool. I just

    My name is Orhan. And I am a fool. I do not generally mind being a fool. I just prefer it is my intention rather than someone else’s.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-20 12:53:00 UTC

  • “People join organizations on the premise that they will not ever lead those org

    –“People join organizations on the premise that they will not ever lead those organizations because the cannot attract followers, it would be hard work, it would be scary, and they could FAIL.

    People support a government because “hurr durr … it’s the law”, and the notion of having someone BUT YOURSELF be the final arbiter of YOUR OWN PROBLEMS is actually quite nice – in no small part because people cannot retaliate against you for appeal to the judiciary for a dispute resolution.

    People pray to Zoroastrian offshoot Gods because they’re omnipotent so THEY don’t have to be.”— John Jost


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-20 08:44:00 UTC

  • WHAT IS CONSERVATISM, LIBERTARIANISM, PROGRESSIVISM? A Genetic Predisposition –

    WHAT IS CONSERVATISM, LIBERTARIANISM, PROGRESSIVISM?

    A Genetic Predisposition – an Instinct

    An Intuition – an instinct and experience

    A Tradition – a surviving portfolio of habits

    An Ideology – a Justification

    A Philosophy – a Moral Model

    A Formal Philosophy – An Institutional Model

    A Social Science (law)


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-20 03:34:00 UTC

  • DO WE CHOOSE OUR RULERS? Actually, it depends on the organization’s SIZE, and me

    DO WE CHOOSE OUR RULERS?

    Actually, it depends on the organization’s SIZE, and method of adaptation.

    – For very large organizations, it’s that no one wills change of leader sufficiently, because of the cost of change.

    – For medium organizations, people choose the leader possible for the group to preserve its power.

    – For small organizations, it’s absolutely true that people choose leaders.

    Choice of leadership is a game: it’s the best one we can get among those that enough people want, not the leader we want.

    Leadership is necessary if for no other reason than to maintain grop solidarity while providing decidability, although consensus building is why we prefer to use them. leaders prevent defection.

    I could go on about this, but leaders exist becasue we need them to. We choose the ones we CAN choose, and we change or resist change dependent upon the cost of doing so.

    In markets we need only negative leaders (judges), but it is very hard to defect and survive. In the production of commons we need positive leaders (deciders), but it is very hard to defect and survive. In commercial organizations we need both judges and deciders, but we have the opportunity to defect, and we are constantly aware of the choices.

    This is then, the same reason we are compensated, not for production, but for our value in the ORGANIZATION of production.

    As far as I know, this well researched, well understood, and effectively a law of organization.

    Economics in everything.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    (ps: any moral argument is suspect. if the argument is not reduced to costs, someone is likely trying to fool you.)


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-20 03:21:00 UTC