Mar 23, 2020, 2:02 PM
—“Once I realized that military/defense is 1) a collective service and 2) provides value by seemingly preventing its own necessity, the libertarian bubble popped.”—Bobo Laremy
CD: military services is also an unsubstitutable good, so no you can’t pay someone to do it for you.
Mar 23, 2020, 2:45 PM In a universal military you get a trophy for doing your duty, meaning you get RESPECT for doing your duty even if its cleaning toilets. This is what is different. This is a huge difference. Status is available to everyone. You do not get a trophy unless you are fastest. You get a ribbon for competing to be fast. The original olympics – everyone ran. The mob-races are part of this game. We are not equal in ability. We are not equal in potential. We are not equal in achievement. We are ONLY EQUAL IN FULFILLING OUR DUTY. And if one does his duty he is due respect. And if one does not do his duty he is due disrespect or punishment.
Mar 23, 2020, 2:45 PM In a universal military you get a trophy for doing your duty, meaning you get RESPECT for doing your duty even if its cleaning toilets. This is what is different. This is a huge difference. Status is available to everyone. You do not get a trophy unless you are fastest. You get a ribbon for competing to be fast. The original olympics – everyone ran. The mob-races are part of this game. We are not equal in ability. We are not equal in potential. We are not equal in achievement. We are ONLY EQUAL IN FULFILLING OUR DUTY. And if one does his duty he is due respect. And if one does not do his duty he is due disrespect or punishment.
Mar 31, 2020, 5:27 PM Very simple logic. Why should the strong not conquer, rape, pillage, and murder the weak? Because cooperation and numbers can be more rewarding over the long term. When are cooperation and numbers more rewarding than conquest, rape, pillage, and murder? When behavior is reciprocal. What does reciprocal mean? Do nothing that imposes costs upon the demonstrated interests of others either directly or indirectly – and conquer, rape, pillage, and murder anyone who does. And how do I do nothing that imposes costs upon the demonstrated interests of others either directly, or indirectly? Limit your display word and deed to productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality, The consequence: the most moral condition humanity can possibly create. Such men are the gods among men.
Mar 31, 2020, 5:27 PM Very simple logic. Why should the strong not conquer, rape, pillage, and murder the weak? Because cooperation and numbers can be more rewarding over the long term. When are cooperation and numbers more rewarding than conquest, rape, pillage, and murder? When behavior is reciprocal. What does reciprocal mean? Do nothing that imposes costs upon the demonstrated interests of others either directly or indirectly – and conquer, rape, pillage, and murder anyone who does. And how do I do nothing that imposes costs upon the demonstrated interests of others either directly, or indirectly? Limit your display word and deed to productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality, The consequence: the most moral condition humanity can possibly create. Such men are the gods among men.
“Within the limits of the utility of Cooperation.” https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/within-the-limits-of-the-utility-of-cooperation/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 12:44:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265987377182498817
Apr 1, 2020, 2:14 PM The market will always converge on the moral utility that is necessary for the demographic distribution within the market. As such if you want a high trust prosperous polity, you will converge on reciprocity if and only if the population is capable of reciprocity under the given geographic, demographic, military, political, economic, and familial structure. So, no, in no case are ‘moral intuition’ or ‘value’ neutral. A sufficient market demand for evil, criminality, or immorality is a market demand that is non-arbitrary. A market demand for hedonism, libertinism, hyperconsumption must be offset by others market demand for the opposite. Ergo, your preferences may be preferences, but that does not mean they are value neutral. They aren’t. They are consequent non-neutral.
Apr 1, 2020, 2:14 PM The market will always converge on the moral utility that is necessary for the demographic distribution within the market. As such if you want a high trust prosperous polity, you will converge on reciprocity if and only if the population is capable of reciprocity under the given geographic, demographic, military, political, economic, and familial structure. So, no, in no case are ‘moral intuition’ or ‘value’ neutral. A sufficient market demand for evil, criminality, or immorality is a market demand that is non-arbitrary. A market demand for hedonism, libertinism, hyperconsumption must be offset by others market demand for the opposite. Ergo, your preferences may be preferences, but that does not mean they are value neutral. They aren’t. They are consequent non-neutral.
Apr 1, 2020, 3:55 PM The market will always converge on the moral utility that is necessary for the demographic distribution within the market. As such if you want a high trust prosperous polity, you will converge on reciprocity if and only if the population is capable of reciprocity under the given geographic, demographic, military, political, economic, and familial structure. So, no, in no case is either ‘moral intuition’ or ‘value’ neutral. A sufficient market demand for evil, criminality, or immorality is a market demand that is non-arbitrary. A market demand for hedonism, libertinism, hyper-consumption must be offset by others market demand for the opposite. Ergo, your preferences may be preferences, but that does not mean they are value neutral. They aren’t. They are consequent non-neutral.
Apr 1, 2020, 3:55 PM The market will always converge on the moral utility that is necessary for the demographic distribution within the market. As such if you want a high trust prosperous polity, you will converge on reciprocity if and only if the population is capable of reciprocity under the given geographic, demographic, military, political, economic, and familial structure. So, no, in no case is either ‘moral intuition’ or ‘value’ neutral. A sufficient market demand for evil, criminality, or immorality is a market demand that is non-arbitrary. A market demand for hedonism, libertinism, hyper-consumption must be offset by others market demand for the opposite. Ergo, your preferences may be preferences, but that does not mean they are value neutral. They aren’t. They are consequent non-neutral.