Defeat your enemy completely.
Especially when they avoid argument and result to critique.
There are only two methods of defeating critique.
Thorough exposure of their fraud.
Or Violence.
I will stick with thorough exposure of their fraud.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 15:21:00 UTC
TAXATION
by Bill Anderson
—-“A small group of people gather together and then invent debts that the rest of some population owes them, then goes about publicizing and collecting those invented debts.”— J R Fibonacci Hunn
I think you’re addressing a couple of issues in your larger post: the money system and taxation. Let me address taxation in the quote above.
Taxation is an attempt to resolve the free rider problem in group defense. If a group does not defend its territory and resources (including its pool of breeding females) then it will be conquered. This defense and its related expenses is unavoidable. Who pays these costs? Given the choice, many males will choose to avoid paying the costs of defense (understandably having an incentive to avoid the pain and death of war). But the result of allowing some men to free ride on the backs of those providing very dangerous defense services, is that the group may be unable to defend itself and will be conquered. Thus, the fighting males and those with the longest time horizons will bar free riding, by requiring all males to pay for the defense of the group. These required payments for group defense are the origin of taxation, and are unavoidable.
Your other point has to do with abuses of the money system (and taxation), which you rightly intuit as parasitism.
Every generation must secure its own freedoms, and the price is violence. A people who are unwilling to defend their interests with violence will be conquered, either from without or within.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-17 18:08:00 UTC
THE CONSTITUTION OF A MORAL HUMAN, AND A MORAL AI.
*AI’S WILL BE MORE ETHICAL THAN HUMANS, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.*
The way humans determine permissible and impermissible actions is a test of reciprocity, and we determine it by demonstrated investment of time effort and resources, and we categorize such investments as interests from self, to kin, to property, to shareholder interests, to interests in the physical commons, to interest in the institutional, normative, traditional, and informational commons.
We do this every day. All day. In every human society. In all societies of record.
Just as we converge on Aristotelian language (mathematical measurement of constant relations, scientific due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, and legal testimony in operational language), we converge on sovereignty, reciprocity, and property as the unit of measure that is calculable.
In all social orders of any complexity the test of property is ‘title’.
The problem for any computational method we wish to limit an artificial intelligence to constraints within, is the homogeneity of property definitions within a polity, and the heterogeneity of property definitions across a polity.
The problem of creating a convergence on the definition of property (and therefore commensurability) is that groups differ in competitive evolutionary strategies, just as do classes and genders (whose strategies are opposite but compatible.)
The reason you cannot and did not state a unit of measure (method of commensurability) is very likely because (judging from the language you use) you would find that unit of measure uncomfortable, because all humans have a desire to preserve room for ‘cheating’ (theft, fraud, free riding, conspiracy) so that they can avoid the effort and cost of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges.
And the reason we do that – so many people do that – is marginal indifferences in value to one another.
I have been working on this problem since the early 1980’s and it still surprises me that the rather obvious evidence of economics and law is entirely ignored by philosophy just as cost, economics, and physics are ignored by philosophy and theology.
Machines cannot default as we do to intuition. They need a means of decidability, even if we call that ‘intuition’ (default choices).
I am an anti-philosophy philosopher in the sense that I expose pseudo-rationalism and pseudoscience for failures of completeness, because these failures of completeness are simply excuses for sloppy thinking, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism and deceit.
Mathematics has terms of decidability, logic has terms of decidability, and algorithms must have terms of decidability, Accounting has terms of decidability, contracts have terms of decidability, ordinary language has terms of decidability, even fictions have terms of decidability (archetypes and plots).
Rule of law evolved to eliminate discretion and the dependence upon intuition, as did testimony as did science, as did mathematics, as did logic. Programming computers using hierarchical, relational, and textual databases tends to train human beings in the difference between computability, calculability (including deduction) and reason (reliance on intuition for decidability).
The human brain does a fairly good job of constantly solving for both predator (opportunity), and prey (risk) and our emotions evolved to describe the difference.
There is no reason that we cannot produce algorithms that do the same, using property(title) as a limit on action.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-17 15:29:00 UTC
—“—“Any even semi free nation that doesn’t have ICBMs is a free rider on the commons of the USA”— I don’t know why I never thought of the military as the commons. Just hit me”— A Friend.
Once you start seeing it, you start seeing it everywhere – and then you understand…..
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-17 13:58:00 UTC
by Bill Anderson —-“A small group of people gather together and then invent debts that the rest of some population owes them, then goes about publicizing and collecting those invented debts.”— J R Fibonacci Hunn I think you’re addressing a couple of issues in your larger post: the money system and taxation. Let me address taxation in the quote above. Taxation is an attempt to resolve the free rider problem in group defense. If a group does not defend its territory and resources (including its pool of breeding females) then it will be conquered. This defense and its related expenses is unavoidable. Who pays these costs? Given the choice, many males will choose to avoid paying the costs of defense (understandably having an incentive to avoid the pain and death of war). But the result of allowing some men to free ride on the backs of those providing very dangerous defense services, is that the group may be unable to defend itself and will be conquered. Thus, the fighting males and those with the longest time horizons will bar free riding, by requiring all males to pay for the defense of the group. These required payments for group defense are the origin of taxation, and are unavoidable. Your other point has to do with abuses of the money system (and taxation), which you rightly intuit as parasitism. Every generation must secure its own freedoms, and the price is violence. A people who are unwilling to defend their interests with violence will be conquered, either from without or within.
by Bill Anderson —-“A small group of people gather together and then invent debts that the rest of some population owes them, then goes about publicizing and collecting those invented debts.”— J R Fibonacci Hunn I think you’re addressing a couple of issues in your larger post: the money system and taxation. Let me address taxation in the quote above. Taxation is an attempt to resolve the free rider problem in group defense. If a group does not defend its territory and resources (including its pool of breeding females) then it will be conquered. This defense and its related expenses is unavoidable. Who pays these costs? Given the choice, many males will choose to avoid paying the costs of defense (understandably having an incentive to avoid the pain and death of war). But the result of allowing some men to free ride on the backs of those providing very dangerous defense services, is that the group may be unable to defend itself and will be conquered. Thus, the fighting males and those with the longest time horizons will bar free riding, by requiring all males to pay for the defense of the group. These required payments for group defense are the origin of taxation, and are unavoidable. Your other point has to do with abuses of the money system (and taxation), which you rightly intuit as parasitism. Every generation must secure its own freedoms, and the price is violence. A people who are unwilling to defend their interests with violence will be conquered, either from without or within.
THERE IS ONLY ONE LAW, AND NO OTHER
There is no reason for a basis of law other than reciprocity except to create a law of non-reciprocity (free riding, fraud, theft, harm, and to export risk upon others by taking actions that one cannot pay the restitution for if one fails.)
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-16 17:17:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/996801703734325248
THERE IS ONLY ONE LAW, AND NO OTHER
There is no reason for a basis of law other than reciprocity except to create a law of non-reciprocity (free riding, fraud, theft, harm, and to export risk upon others by taking actions that one cannot pay the restitution for if one fails.)
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-16 13:16:00 UTC
YOUR CHOICE OF PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY IS LIMITED BY OTHERS CHOICE OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
Dear idiots. You don’t get to choose a personal philosophy that isn’t bound by a political philosophy agreed to by others – and still survive competition in that polity. Just as groups don’t get to choose a political philosophy that can’t survive the market for territories. It doesn’t matter what you alone think or want. A personal philosophy is, almost without exception, either a means of succeeding within a political philosophy, or a means of escapism from a political philosophy one is bound by. Further, one can create personal fantasies of escapism; personal philosophies of resistance; personal philosophies of navigation (survival); and of success (competition), and of excellence (heroism). A political philosophy ( meaning a social, economic, political, and military order) empowers enough of the people such that the group survives competition. Political philosophies change when a group either surrenders to competition (multiculturalism), resists competition, or seeks an opportunity for superior competition. But the individual is only as useful and only possesses so much choice, as his philosophy serves the interests of the body politic in the persistence of their group strategy ( what we call ‘philosophy’). So one either assists, is dead weight, or is a drag on the group’s strategy. And by and large, within the margins, one’s success is determined by the relationship one chooses wth the groups strategy. The only choice is creating a large enough group with an new enough strategy that one can disrupt the order and replace it with one that serves the same interests in the new order. In the case of the current order, we have let the evil people go too far in undermining the ‘Third Way’ provided by America in contrast to the other underclass and authoritarian civilizations. We were foolishly optimistic christians, and not empirical Aryans. As such it is very unlikely that without vast bloodshed, we will exit the next crisis with the entire continent. But we will exit the next crisis with self determination. They will decay from demographic weight alone. There is nothing they can do.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-16 11:16:00 UTC
There is a very great difference between transforming the state of the physical world by physical coercion (labor), and transforming the choices and organization of people using incentives (layers of entrepreneurship and management). The physical world can’t choose between options. Man can choose between options unless he is in fact a slave – thereby lacking exit. Now, one might say that exit is not itself a favorable choice, but then it is a choice for labor, and not a choice for slaves. The Communist and Socialist wants to create serf labor – lacking exit but the management (state) takes ownership for the survival of the serfs. The Democratic socialist wants to preserve voluntary organization of production but monopolize involuntary production of commons by maximum extraction of the profits of the market. The classical liberal wants to preserve the private production of goods, services, and information, and the private production of all commons it is possible to produce in that market, while limiting the involuntary production of commons to those of via-negativa constraint: Military, Justice, Law. The anarchist (libertarian) wants to prohibit the production of involuntary commons (despite this is as impossible as communism since there is no incentive to participate in an uncompetitive polity, when a polity is and of itself, a commons. We cannot restore pastoralism(zero-commons). Even if those peoples that have never succeeded at agrarianism and been through it’s evolutionary grinder, desperately want to restore it and resist civilization at every opportunity. All the potential value is created by the martial aristocracy. All the value is created by the entrepreneurial class. The vast amount of the benefit is obtained by the laboring classes, and the underclasses that would otherwise be dead. The beneficiary of civlization is largely labor. The principle benefit of the few at the top, and the minority in the middle, is signaling that preserves their identification as those who successfully organize potential, organize production distribution and trade, and organize the labor that requires little other than the physical to transform the physical world.