It’s a dirty janitorial job, cleaning the informational commons, and fit only for an outlier, but someone’s gotta do it. š
Source date (UTC): 2023-11-05 20:40:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1721266325396304172
Reply addressees: @EgregoresGalore
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1721264170178695316
RT @WalterIII: “Drugs don’t matter unless by externality they extend from home life into the commons.” But even if kept private(unimpairiā¦
Source date (UTC): 2023-11-04 15:50:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720830986433261957
This is correct of course.
But it’s only partly true.
If we account for that small percentage that should never be permitted back into the commons we would radically reduce crime.
If we account for the incentives for criminal and antisocial behavior we can possibly reduce a larger fraction of the population that is easily succeptible to criminal and antisocial behavior.
If we account for the large number of people insufficiently supplied with the training (Discipline) to produce mindfulness we then start to make inroads on the masses.
If we account for the failure of education to provide konwledge discipline and training sufficient to maintain mindfulness in an adversarial world of markets in everything, then we have not only made inroads but begun to solve the problem of the majority.
There are plenty of mentally unhealthy people walking the streets.
And the reason for that is partly our fault.
and it’s because of silly ideas.
Silly ideas about humans – wishful thinking combined with magical thinking.
And worse – only about ten percent of people actually think. The rest only feel or intuit and then seek some set of words they know to justify those feelings and intuitions no matter how absurd they are for the context we live in.
This means without institutional means of training generations into mindfulness by multiple means there are too few of those of us who think, and those who think are distproportionately male, to bring about change.
There are all sorts of capital humans depend upon and we created the progressivism of the 20th under the fanciful prsumption that we had solved scarcity, that reduction in sarcity would producde mindfulness, that education could supplant indoctrination into mindfulness, and that human instinctual behavior would not re-emerge as a source of conflict and decay without that mindfulness. and it is currently mass producing mental illness on a scale not seen in human history.
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation
Reply addressees: @taylorburrowes
Source date (UTC): 2023-11-01 19:58:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719806072892874752
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719797606732448190
RT @WerrellBradley: @JohannNetram DEMONSTRATED INTERESTS COUNT:
Self Interest scales poorly as compared to Interest in The Commons.
Low Tā¦
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-25 22:31:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1717307992624742708
A house of monarchy, lords, parliament (business owners), and the church (peasantry) functioned as a market for the production of commons between the classes -eaning people with different knowledge, skill, responsibility, and ability.
A house of monarchy, the senate(regions), the upper house(business), lower house (labor), and women’s house should provide a market that can discover concurrency. That is what we live in you know. A Republic (rule of law, represenatative government) and concurrency (multiple houses ensuring concurrrency of regions and classes).
Reply addressees: @Josh_Ebner @ToddNQuick1 @BOB37702515
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-24 22:11:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1716940497766252544
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1716938220293034415
Can We Reform Women And Restore Our Civilization?
Women aren’t consciousof their antisocial behavior as unethical, immoral, and criminial evasion of responsibility for the commons. I’ve done the work: we can clearly implement the law prohibiting their behaviors by either sex and in doing so train the entire population back ito a high trust society.
The problem is, without this articulation of the cause, the behavior, and the limits on the behavior, and without the reinforcement of the law, women will not constrain one another to prosocial behavior,and will continue to manufacture false oppression narratives that they hide behind to excuse their antisocial behavior – which always and everywhere is nothing but the evasion of responsibility for the commons, which, in the end, is what citizenship consists of.
If you can’t defend the commons, by taking responsibilty for defending the commons, including by display word and deed, despite the emotional, social, and physical risk, then you can’t have access to citizenship because that’s what citizenship means: responsibility.
You can have juridical defense (negativa) but you can’t have political or legislative influence(positiva).
Reply addressees: @Agkistrodon14
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-14 17:36:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1713247362179629056
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1713234637126836240
That’s not true. It’s underclass priestly ethics of non aggression and non-responsibilty for the commons, including the non responsibility of the ethics of the bazaar. It’s why islam can’t form corporations of scale or governments because it’s the lowest trust civilizationā¦
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-12 19:40:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1712553803135045854
Reply addressees: @AlhayekMaher
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1712529725246075281
That’s not true. It’s underclass priestly ethics of non aggression and non-responsibilty for the commons, including the non responsibility of the ethics of the bazaar. It’s why islam can’t form corporations of scale or governments because it’s the lowest trust civilization outside of africa. Why are muslims untrustworthy? Why does barter survive instead pricing? Why are the militaries and governments so corrupt? Why do you need an authoritarian religion and an authoritarian goverment if you are moral and cooperative and can produce commons? Why are you so petty about insulting truths?
This difference between aristocracy and priesthood has always been true. Read “Hermes and the cart of lies” for the ancient version, or read the CIA’s Advice on working with muslims, or read the many papers on cultural differences in negotiation and contract. So, you’re confusing priesthood and the ethics of irresponsible slaves with aristocracy and the responsibility for the commons. You defend your irresponsibilty.
WE have the principle of noblesse oblige. (i’m a product of it) But our objective is to produce peers (an aristocracy of everyone) who can bear responsibility both for private and common. That’s not what judaism or islam seek.
I don’t like handing out painful truths about islam any more than I do about christianty, judaism, european civ, and americans. But we only learn the truth by comparaitive falsification.
But we have to end our falsehoods if we are to cooperate without conflict.
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-12 19:40:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1712553802929418240
Private < —– common —- > Political
Im talking about the political end.
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-08 23:26:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1711161143908295081
Reply addressees: @Bioliberalism @DanielB02277937
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1711156726207074802
There are only so many ways to pay for the commons.
1. One is commissions from the activity created by the market created by the institutions including that of law. This can be either sales or income.
Income causes the LEAST interference in the pricing system and human behavior.
Sales too much influence on both.,
2. The other is payment for services: We either pay for services directly allocated to us, in itemized fashion every year;
Or
We use direct economic democracy with the budgets for each thing we need to finance, and we individually allocate our funds to whatever we wish, until all funds are allocated.
The problem with the second one is that people will try to game it and try to free ride on it.
Progressive taxation means the wealthy pay for nearly all taxes, which is how america works despite the rancor of the left, and more than half of the people free ride on the taxes paid by the wealthy – given only half us contribute meaningfully to taxes, and of those who do almost all are white males over 35.
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-06 21:56:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1710413711645507584