Theme: Cooperation

  • Do humans have the ability imitate (physical), empathize(emotional), sympathize

    Do humans have the ability imitate (physical), empathize(emotional), sympathize (intellectual), of course, that’s why we are able to cooperate. Do juries test consistency, correspondence, rational incentive, and reciprocity, means, motive, opportunity, and intent? Yes.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-04 01:14:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179927652536336387

    Reply addressees: @freedomismoral

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179913987762216961


    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/1179913987762216961

  • So as far as I know, it’s acceptable to the rest of us if you preserve your soph

    So as far as I know, it’s acceptable to the rest of us if you preserve your sophisms and supernaturalisms, if it sedates you such that you have enough mindfulness to survive a world uncaring of you – or anyone else.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-04 00:53:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179922466493358081

    Reply addressees: @freedomismoral

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179921646041403397


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @freedomismoral But in matters of argument, competition, conflict, or ir-reciprocity(criminal, unethical, immoral) your imagination makes no difference. Lying to yourself makes no difference. Lying to preserve a delusion makes no difference. Only action does. And actions demonstrate truth.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1179921646041403397


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @freedomismoral But in matters of argument, competition, conflict, or ir-reciprocity(criminal, unethical, immoral) your imagination makes no difference. Lying to yourself makes no difference. Lying to preserve a delusion makes no difference. Only action does. And actions demonstrate truth.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1179921646041403397

  • The study of human cooperation: ie: social science

    The study of human cooperation: ie: social science.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-04 00:02:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179909646548639745

    Reply addressees: @ClownBa73413423

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179908934305492993


    IN REPLY TO:

    @FullAccountant

    @curtdoolittle Where economics by consumption = the traditional definition of economics: The study of scarcity? If so, do you have a different definition of economics than what is typically taught by economists?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179908934305492993

  • Yes We Need Order Rather than Chaos

    (from Gab)

    —“Jefferson? We don’t need freedom, we need order”– @alternative_right

    [Y]es, but what order?

    1. Order of Truth, Science, Law and productive cooperation? (Rule of Law – Competition between men under the law of reciprocity.)
    2. Or order of Lies, Supernaturalism, Scripture and Parasitism – Rule by men? (Rule by Church Men – Priests)

    3. Or order of Fraud, Pseudoscience, Sophism and Parasitism – rule by men? (Rule by Dishonest Men – “You Know Who”)

    4. Or order of Force, Command, Whim, and Parasitism – rule by man? (Rule by Forceful Men – Military )

    Let me explain Jefferson’s context. 1. The Aristocratic order (taxation force), 2. The Priestly Order(lies, obedience and Tithes) and 3. The Commercial order (truth, tort, and trade). His understanding was natural law Natural law by rule of law. Rule of law producing a commercial order. A commercial order is a voluntary order. An order of meritocracy. Meritocracy meaning Natural Aristocracy. We haven’t replaced it with socializing. We’ve replaced it with DISORDER. We can have our order but we cannot have it by the simple means you intuit. Rules must exist, and rules free of human ‘discretion’ because in the end all human discretion ‘swims left’. Jefferson was (correctly) trying to create a THIRD WAY, free of the parasitism of the state and church – who were both tremendous parasites that kept our people in ignorance and poverty. The Enemy can bed defeated by law and prosecution without planting the seeds of another enemy. The natural law is the best civic religion ever invented by man. The natural law, the stoic method, and the Epicurean goals are the optimum personal religion. The Five Rules of Christianity, if limited to Kin, are the optimum method of producing harmony. The only cost one bears under the natural law is christian forgiveness. And Aryan Intolerance. Every Man a Sheriff.

  • Yes We Need Order Rather than Chaos

    (from Gab)

    —“Jefferson? We don’t need freedom, we need order”– @alternative_right

    [Y]es, but what order?

    1. Order of Truth, Science, Law and productive cooperation? (Rule of Law – Competition between men under the law of reciprocity.)
    2. Or order of Lies, Supernaturalism, Scripture and Parasitism – Rule by men? (Rule by Church Men – Priests)

    3. Or order of Fraud, Pseudoscience, Sophism and Parasitism – rule by men? (Rule by Dishonest Men – “You Know Who”)

    4. Or order of Force, Command, Whim, and Parasitism – rule by man? (Rule by Forceful Men – Military )

    Let me explain Jefferson’s context. 1. The Aristocratic order (taxation force), 2. The Priestly Order(lies, obedience and Tithes) and 3. The Commercial order (truth, tort, and trade). His understanding was natural law Natural law by rule of law. Rule of law producing a commercial order. A commercial order is a voluntary order. An order of meritocracy. Meritocracy meaning Natural Aristocracy. We haven’t replaced it with socializing. We’ve replaced it with DISORDER. We can have our order but we cannot have it by the simple means you intuit. Rules must exist, and rules free of human ‘discretion’ because in the end all human discretion ‘swims left’. Jefferson was (correctly) trying to create a THIRD WAY, free of the parasitism of the state and church – who were both tremendous parasites that kept our people in ignorance and poverty. The Enemy can bed defeated by law and prosecution without planting the seeds of another enemy. The natural law is the best civic religion ever invented by man. The natural law, the stoic method, and the Epicurean goals are the optimum personal religion. The Five Rules of Christianity, if limited to Kin, are the optimum method of producing harmony. The only cost one bears under the natural law is christian forgiveness. And Aryan Intolerance. Every Man a Sheriff.

  • Why Universal Nationalism vs Globalism

    WHY UNIVERSAL NATIONALISM VS GLOBALISM by Curt Doolittle

    —“I do universal nationalism. Why? Because natural law judges it as the only not-immoral means of cooperation. But that doesn’t tell you much. Instead it’s because “all men are distant relations cooperating to raise their people by the production of commons information, goods, and services, best suited to doing so despite our differences in rate of development bias in temperament and bias in distribution of abilities.” And if we construct states as extensions of the family, household, clan, tribe, and nation, we have elites who serve the interests of their people on their terms, and the smallest proximity-to-influence-and power that is possible. And we ameliorate our differences not through politics, power, and commons, but through trade of information, goods, and services. If we do otherwise, under globalism, we put those people into competition, where there is one small global elite with interest in one another, and a host of common people suffering their rule. So there is no system of rule superior to universal nationalism, with tolerance for migration of elites for trade purposes – but prohibiting them from local political enfranchise and social involvement, and public speech.”–

  • Why Universal Nationalism vs Globalism

    WHY UNIVERSAL NATIONALISM VS GLOBALISM by Curt Doolittle

    —“I do universal nationalism. Why? Because natural law judges it as the only not-immoral means of cooperation. But that doesn’t tell you much. Instead it’s because “all men are distant relations cooperating to raise their people by the production of commons information, goods, and services, best suited to doing so despite our differences in rate of development bias in temperament and bias in distribution of abilities.” And if we construct states as extensions of the family, household, clan, tribe, and nation, we have elites who serve the interests of their people on their terms, and the smallest proximity-to-influence-and power that is possible. And we ameliorate our differences not through politics, power, and commons, but through trade of information, goods, and services. If we do otherwise, under globalism, we put those people into competition, where there is one small global elite with interest in one another, and a host of common people suffering their rule. So there is no system of rule superior to universal nationalism, with tolerance for migration of elites for trade purposes – but prohibiting them from local political enfranchise and social involvement, and public speech.”–

  • Propertarianism: Cooperation

    Propertarianism: Cooperation https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/propertarianism-cooperation/


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 22:44:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179890006707654657

  • Propertarianism: Cooperation

    PROPERTARIANISM: COOPERATION The Evolution of Cooperation: 1) Acquisitiveness: To survive and reproduce, humans must acquire and inventory many categories of resources, and evolved to demonstrate constant acquisitiveness of those resources. 2) Property: The scope of those things they act upon, or choose not to act upon, in anticipation of obtaining as inventory (a store of value), constitute their demonstrated definition of property-en-toto.* (See Butler Schaeffer) “That which and organism defends.” 3) Value: Human emotions evolved to reflect changes in state of property-en-toto.* As such nearly all emotions can be expressed in terms of reactions to property. (imposed costs here, pre-moral, but also pre-cooperation, and only defense and retaliation, not cooperation) 4) Non-Conflict: That which humans act to obtain without imposition upon in-group members they evolved to intuit as their property, and demonstrate this intuition by defense of their inventory, and by their punishment of transgressors. 5) Cooperative Production: That which humans act in concert with one another to produce. (Important take-away is that the purpose of cooperation is material and reproductive production.) 6) Moral (cooperative) Intuitions(instincts): Moral intuitions reflect prohibitions on free riding by members with whom one cooperates in production and reproduction. (This is where free riding enters.) 7) Distribution of Intuitions by Reproductive Strategy: Moral intuitions vary in intensity to suit one’s reproductive strategy. This intensity and distribution of moral intuition varies between males and females, as well as between classes and between groups. 8) Variation By Family Structure: Moral rules reflect prohibitions on free riding given the structure of the family in relation to the necessary and available structure of production. 9) Resolution of Disputes: Property rights were developed in law as the positive enumeration in contractual form, of those moral rules which any polity (corporation) agrees to enforce with the promise of violence for the purpose of restitution or punishment. Conversely, any possible property rights not expressed, the community (corporation) is unwilling to adjudicate, restore or punish, or has not yet discovered the need to construct. 10) Instrumentation: Property rights are necessary for the instrumental measurement of moral prohibitions because of the unobservability of changes in human emotional states, and our inability to determine truth from falsehood. And as such we require an observable proxy for evidence of changes in state. 11) Family: As a general rule, as the division of knowledge and labor increases, so must the atomicity of property rights, and as a consequence, the size of the family must decline {Consanguineous, Punaluan, Pairing (Serial Marriage), Hetaeristic, Traditional, Stem, Nuclear, Absolute Nuclear}. 12) Transaction Costs: As the division of labor increases, relationships increase in distance from kin, increase in anonymity, decrease common interest, and the incentive to seize opportunities rather than adhere to agreements increases. This decrease creates the problem of trust, which increases costs of insuring any agreement is fulfilled, and decreases the overall number of possible agreements and the number of participants in any structure of production. 13) Trust (ethics in production): As a general rule, for the size of the family to decrease, and division of labor to increase in multi-part complexity then trust must increase, and trust can only increase with expansion of property rights to include prohibitions on unethical actions. Mere ostracization, boycotting and reputation are insufficient to preserve agreements (contracts). 14) Moral Competition (ethics in political production): (morals property rights, cheating) As a general rule, the scope of moral prohibitions expressed as property rights, must increase to limit demand for authority. 15) Demand for Authority: As a general rule, if a delay in the production of property rights evolves, then demand for authority will fill the vacuum with some form of authority to either suppress retaliation (conflict) or to prevent circumstances leading to conflict, or both. THE REASONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF COOPERATION INGROUP COOPERATION 1) The disproportionately high return on cooperation. 2) The differences in abilities at different ages. 3) The difference in reproductive role and strategy between the genders. 4) The differences in abilities among men. 5) The local structure of production: the division of knowledge and labor. 6) The local structure of the reproduction: family and inheritance rights. 7) The distribution of property rights between the individual, family, group and the commons. 8) The degree of suppression of, and intolerance for, free riding both in and out of family. 9) calculative, cooperative technology available for economic signaling and coordination. (objective truth, numbers, money, prices, interest, writing, contract, and accounting). 10) The use of formal institutions to perpetuate these constraints. 11) The competition from groups with alternate structures of production, family, inheritance, property rights, free riding, cooperative technologies, and formal institutions. OUTGROUP COOPERATION 12) The geographical distribution of nature-given factors of production. (note that this is last.) PROPERTARIANISM: PROPERTY RIGHT OBVERSE: A prohibition on the imposition of costs against those categories of property that in-group members are willing to enforce by means of organized violence. REVERSE: a warranty by peers (right) that they will either enforce restitution for impositions of costs upon certain categories of your property, and/or that they will not retaliate against you for your acts of retaliation or restitution for such impositions. RESULT? (i) PROPERTY: that which we demonstrate that we have born costs to acquire without imposing costs upon others with whom we cooperate. (ii) COOPERATION: constructing an asymmetry of incentives such that we choose to concentrate efforts by dividing labor in order to obtain the disproportionate rewards of doing so versus the alternatives. (iii) MORALITY: that which we require in order to rationally cooperate. (iv) RIGHT: Sanction of retaliation in case of abridgment. OBLIGATION: Requirement of performance. (v) LAW (PROPERTY RIGHT): that which we promise to one another to insure. —END OF ANALYSIS–

  • Propertarianism: Cooperation

    PROPERTARIANISM: COOPERATION The Evolution of Cooperation: 1) Acquisitiveness: To survive and reproduce, humans must acquire and inventory many categories of resources, and evolved to demonstrate constant acquisitiveness of those resources. 2) Property: The scope of those things they act upon, or choose not to act upon, in anticipation of obtaining as inventory (a store of value), constitute their demonstrated definition of property-en-toto.* (See Butler Schaeffer) “That which and organism defends.” 3) Value: Human emotions evolved to reflect changes in state of property-en-toto.* As such nearly all emotions can be expressed in terms of reactions to property. (imposed costs here, pre-moral, but also pre-cooperation, and only defense and retaliation, not cooperation) 4) Non-Conflict: That which humans act to obtain without imposition upon in-group members they evolved to intuit as their property, and demonstrate this intuition by defense of their inventory, and by their punishment of transgressors. 5) Cooperative Production: That which humans act in concert with one another to produce. (Important take-away is that the purpose of cooperation is material and reproductive production.) 6) Moral (cooperative) Intuitions(instincts): Moral intuitions reflect prohibitions on free riding by members with whom one cooperates in production and reproduction. (This is where free riding enters.) 7) Distribution of Intuitions by Reproductive Strategy: Moral intuitions vary in intensity to suit one’s reproductive strategy. This intensity and distribution of moral intuition varies between males and females, as well as between classes and between groups. 8) Variation By Family Structure: Moral rules reflect prohibitions on free riding given the structure of the family in relation to the necessary and available structure of production. 9) Resolution of Disputes: Property rights were developed in law as the positive enumeration in contractual form, of those moral rules which any polity (corporation) agrees to enforce with the promise of violence for the purpose of restitution or punishment. Conversely, any possible property rights not expressed, the community (corporation) is unwilling to adjudicate, restore or punish, or has not yet discovered the need to construct. 10) Instrumentation: Property rights are necessary for the instrumental measurement of moral prohibitions because of the unobservability of changes in human emotional states, and our inability to determine truth from falsehood. And as such we require an observable proxy for evidence of changes in state. 11) Family: As a general rule, as the division of knowledge and labor increases, so must the atomicity of property rights, and as a consequence, the size of the family must decline {Consanguineous, Punaluan, Pairing (Serial Marriage), Hetaeristic, Traditional, Stem, Nuclear, Absolute Nuclear}. 12) Transaction Costs: As the division of labor increases, relationships increase in distance from kin, increase in anonymity, decrease common interest, and the incentive to seize opportunities rather than adhere to agreements increases. This decrease creates the problem of trust, which increases costs of insuring any agreement is fulfilled, and decreases the overall number of possible agreements and the number of participants in any structure of production. 13) Trust (ethics in production): As a general rule, for the size of the family to decrease, and division of labor to increase in multi-part complexity then trust must increase, and trust can only increase with expansion of property rights to include prohibitions on unethical actions. Mere ostracization, boycotting and reputation are insufficient to preserve agreements (contracts). 14) Moral Competition (ethics in political production): (morals property rights, cheating) As a general rule, the scope of moral prohibitions expressed as property rights, must increase to limit demand for authority. 15) Demand for Authority: As a general rule, if a delay in the production of property rights evolves, then demand for authority will fill the vacuum with some form of authority to either suppress retaliation (conflict) or to prevent circumstances leading to conflict, or both. THE REASONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF COOPERATION INGROUP COOPERATION 1) The disproportionately high return on cooperation. 2) The differences in abilities at different ages. 3) The difference in reproductive role and strategy between the genders. 4) The differences in abilities among men. 5) The local structure of production: the division of knowledge and labor. 6) The local structure of the reproduction: family and inheritance rights. 7) The distribution of property rights between the individual, family, group and the commons. 8) The degree of suppression of, and intolerance for, free riding both in and out of family. 9) calculative, cooperative technology available for economic signaling and coordination. (objective truth, numbers, money, prices, interest, writing, contract, and accounting). 10) The use of formal institutions to perpetuate these constraints. 11) The competition from groups with alternate structures of production, family, inheritance, property rights, free riding, cooperative technologies, and formal institutions. OUTGROUP COOPERATION 12) The geographical distribution of nature-given factors of production. (note that this is last.) PROPERTARIANISM: PROPERTY RIGHT OBVERSE: A prohibition on the imposition of costs against those categories of property that in-group members are willing to enforce by means of organized violence. REVERSE: a warranty by peers (right) that they will either enforce restitution for impositions of costs upon certain categories of your property, and/or that they will not retaliate against you for your acts of retaliation or restitution for such impositions. RESULT? (i) PROPERTY: that which we demonstrate that we have born costs to acquire without imposing costs upon others with whom we cooperate. (ii) COOPERATION: constructing an asymmetry of incentives such that we choose to concentrate efforts by dividing labor in order to obtain the disproportionate rewards of doing so versus the alternatives. (iii) MORALITY: that which we require in order to rationally cooperate. (iv) RIGHT: Sanction of retaliation in case of abridgment. OBLIGATION: Requirement of performance. (v) LAW (PROPERTY RIGHT): that which we promise to one another to insure. —END OF ANALYSIS–