Theme: Cooperation

  • The Golden Rule Explained

    THE GOLDEN RULE EXPLAINEDby Luke Weinhagen [T]hose of us living in high trust societies recognize the importance of The Golden Rule. We understand its value and the benefits we derive from it. It is one of the first formal lessons in social interaction we teach our children. But when you stop there at the Golden Rule alone, we too easily take it for granted. What we seem to miss is that rather than the Golden Rule being the First Rule of a high trust society – it is the last. THE FOUNDATIONS And so we often take for granted the other foundational rules:

    1. Via Positiva: ……. The Golden Rule.
    2. Via Negativa: ….. The Silver Rule.
    3. Via Logica: ……….The Natural Law of Reciprocity.
    4. Via Existentia: …. Rule of Law,
      ………………………….. … The Jury, and
      ………………………….. … Markets in everything.
    5. The Iron Rule: …. Might Makes Right.

    These are Foundational rules – rules that form the foundations of interaction upon which we build the functions of our society – the closer you get to the Golden Rule the more trust you can support. But High Trust, absent vigilance, allows one to make the mistake of standing on that foundation seeing nothing but the immaculate Gold and stop looking – ignoring the layers below that must be there to support each ascending layer. But these other rules can not be ignored. They are active. Starting from the Iron Rule each rule supports the next, making each possible in turn. The next rule in sequence can not exist without the previous rule being applied and maintained. Today someone is out there applying the fifth rule so that you have access to the fourth. Today someone is out there applying the fourth rule so that you have access to the third. Today someone is out there applying the third rule so that you have access to the second. Today someone is out there applying the second rule so that you have access to the first. “BE THAT SOMEONE” Be willing and able to be that someone. All the way down. If you can not be that someone, be grateful that someone is there. If you can not be grateful, at least do not try to knock that someone down – Trust is valuable and we really want to keep the Golden Rule. These are the rules. They are not complicated, but they are demanding. They are not hard to understand, but they so often seem easy to forget. -Luke Weinhagen

  • The Golden Rule Explained

    THE GOLDEN RULE EXPLAINEDby Luke Weinhagen [T]hose of us living in high trust societies recognize the importance of The Golden Rule. We understand its value and the benefits we derive from it. It is one of the first formal lessons in social interaction we teach our children. But when you stop there at the Golden Rule alone, we too easily take it for granted. What we seem to miss is that rather than the Golden Rule being the First Rule of a high trust society – it is the last. THE FOUNDATIONS And so we often take for granted the other foundational rules:

    1. Via Positiva: ……. The Golden Rule.
    2. Via Negativa: ….. The Silver Rule.
    3. Via Logica: ……….The Natural Law of Reciprocity.
    4. Via Existentia: …. Rule of Law,
      ………………………….. … The Jury, and
      ………………………….. … Markets in everything.
    5. The Iron Rule: …. Might Makes Right.

    These are Foundational rules – rules that form the foundations of interaction upon which we build the functions of our society – the closer you get to the Golden Rule the more trust you can support. But High Trust, absent vigilance, allows one to make the mistake of standing on that foundation seeing nothing but the immaculate Gold and stop looking – ignoring the layers below that must be there to support each ascending layer. But these other rules can not be ignored. They are active. Starting from the Iron Rule each rule supports the next, making each possible in turn. The next rule in sequence can not exist without the previous rule being applied and maintained. Today someone is out there applying the fifth rule so that you have access to the fourth. Today someone is out there applying the fourth rule so that you have access to the third. Today someone is out there applying the third rule so that you have access to the second. Today someone is out there applying the second rule so that you have access to the first. “BE THAT SOMEONE” Be willing and able to be that someone. All the way down. If you can not be that someone, be grateful that someone is there. If you can not be grateful, at least do not try to knock that someone down – Trust is valuable and we really want to keep the Golden Rule. These are the rules. They are not complicated, but they are demanding. They are not hard to understand, but they so often seem easy to forget. -Luke Weinhagen

  • The Hierarchy Of Western Rules

    1. Via Positiva: ……. The Golden Rule.
      Do unto others as you would have done unto you

    2. Via Negativa: ….. The Silver Rule.
      Do not unto others as you would not have done unto you.

    3. Via Empathia : …….The Copper Rule
      Do not unto others as they would not have done unto them.

    4. Via Logica: ……….The Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity.
      Limit your actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, of the demonstrated interest of others, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality.

    5. Via Existentia: …. Rule of Law,
      ………………………….. … The Jury, and
      ………………………….. … Markets in everything.

    6. The Iron Rule: …. Might Makes Right.

  • The Hierarchy Of Western Rules

    1. Via Positiva: ……. The Golden Rule.
      Do unto others as you would have done unto you

    2. Via Negativa: ….. The Silver Rule.
      Do not unto others as you would not have done unto you.

    3. Via Empathia : …….The Copper Rule
      Do not unto others as they would not have done unto them.

    4. Via Logica: ……….The Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity.
      Limit your actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, of the demonstrated interest of others, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality.

    5. Via Existentia: …. Rule of Law,
      ………………………….. … The Jury, and
      ………………………….. … Markets in everything.

    6. The Iron Rule: …. Might Makes Right.

  • “in-group vs out-group to morality?”

    “in-group vs out-group to morality?” https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/in-group-vs-out-group-to-morality/


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 20:28:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179855858139832320

  • “in-group vs out-group to morality?”

    —“Can you relate in-group vs out-group to morality = reciprocity ?”—Scott Claremont

    Morality = Rules of cooperation INGROUP VS OUTGROUP 1. Ingroup, 2. outgroup … a. outgroup trade, … b. outgroup boycott, … c. outgroup competitor, … d. outgroup parasite … e. outgroup predator Ingroup by definition = cooperation (moral) Ingroup always requires reciprocity. Ingroup oten requires investment (risk) Ingroup often requires insurance Ingroup may require subsidy. Outgroup by definition only requires utility. Outgroup may or may not require reciprocity Outgroup does not require investment (risk) Outgroup does not demand insurance Outgroup does not require subsidy. Outgroup non-cooperation is disutilitarian Outgroup non-cooperation does not require reciprocity Outgroup non-cooperation does not require investment Outgroup non-cooperation does not require insurance Outgroup non-cooperation does not require subsidy Outgroup enemy is harmful Outgroup enemy requires irreciprocity Outgroup enemy requires costs to impose costs Outgroup enemy requires destruction of their insurance Outgroup enemy requires destruction of their subsidies Lesson: you can’t use one rule for scale. Humans are monkeys that want to imitate or follow a single pre-cognitive intuitions rather than think (remember or reason). But spectra require disambiguation and thought. There are no points(ideal types) only lines (spectra).

  • “in-group vs out-group to morality?”

    —“Can you relate in-group vs out-group to morality = reciprocity ?”—Scott Claremont

    Morality = Rules of cooperation INGROUP VS OUTGROUP 1. Ingroup, 2. outgroup … a. outgroup trade, … b. outgroup boycott, … c. outgroup competitor, … d. outgroup parasite … e. outgroup predator Ingroup by definition = cooperation (moral) Ingroup always requires reciprocity. Ingroup oten requires investment (risk) Ingroup often requires insurance Ingroup may require subsidy. Outgroup by definition only requires utility. Outgroup may or may not require reciprocity Outgroup does not require investment (risk) Outgroup does not demand insurance Outgroup does not require subsidy. Outgroup non-cooperation is disutilitarian Outgroup non-cooperation does not require reciprocity Outgroup non-cooperation does not require investment Outgroup non-cooperation does not require insurance Outgroup non-cooperation does not require subsidy Outgroup enemy is harmful Outgroup enemy requires irreciprocity Outgroup enemy requires costs to impose costs Outgroup enemy requires destruction of their insurance Outgroup enemy requires destruction of their subsidies Lesson: you can’t use one rule for scale. Humans are monkeys that want to imitate or follow a single pre-cognitive intuitions rather than think (remember or reason). But spectra require disambiguation and thought. There are no points(ideal types) only lines (spectra).

  • Engaging with Civnats

    STRATEGY FOR ENGAGING WITH CIVIC NATIONALISTSby John MarkSeptember 26 at 3:49 PM [C]ivic nationalists are instinctive conservatives who are “on our team” but due to ignorance of how racially tribal/ethnocentric nonwhites are (western whites are unique in our relative lack of ethnocentrism/racial tribalism), decades of “equality” propaganda and lies, coupled with sincere lack of ill-will toward nonwhites (niceness/generosity), advocate/support legal nonwhite immigration. We are running into interactions with these folks quite a bit obviously as our reach spreads. Some of them learn essentially instantly, some learn more slowly or get “turned off” by any talk of race. So how do we deal with “the civnat problem”? My take is that our initial goal is we must get the majority of the grassroots Right one step over the line from losing right to winning right – “no more nonwhite immigration, cuz nonwhites vote 70% Left”. (Not cuz “all nonwhites are bad” or “hate” or whatnot.) (Step 1 of redpill on race.) Then, getting past the inevitable “but maybe we can reach nonwhites” requires explaining why that won’t work (they are racially tribal like the whole world except western whites, and are very susceptible to the “our problems are whitey’s fault” narrative which trumps all other logical/factual voting considerations in their psychology), which is Step 2 of redpilling on race. If we avoid these 2 bare-minimum messages, we risk going thru a civil war only to set up civnat policies again afterwards. This would be utterly tragic and would mean our descendants would eventually have to fight the same battle again. On the other hand, the time will never be more ripe for us to teach civnats this essential lesson and collectively as the grassroots Right shed the lie of group equality, than right now and as TX turns purple then blue and we find ourselves electorally powerless due to immigration. The pain of losing electoral power combined with the visciousness and obvious ir-reciprocity of the anti-white narrative and the left’s other craziness shifting into hyperdrive and communism 2.0 (all of which is only a problem because nonwhite voting is empowering it, most whites vote right and consider it silly) – all of this creates the perfect storm for our people to learn this essential lesson. So there is no better time to preach and teach “race redpill steps 1 & 2” than now and the near future. And we propertarians are positioned perfectly to do it in a way that can achieve maximum effectiveness with minimum possible “turn off”/rejection, because a) we have powerful, interesting, truly innovative solutions that are attractive to any instinctive rightwinger (evidences to people that we are not “simple/dumb racists”), and b) we do not have a “hate” or “ill-will” or “mockery” vibe. We can’t pass up this oppurtunity. If we avoid steps 1 & 2 of race redpilling for broader reach, our broader reach will accomplish little in the long run. The grassroots Right has to learn. And now is the perfect time to teach them.

  • Engaging with Civnats

    STRATEGY FOR ENGAGING WITH CIVIC NATIONALISTSby John MarkSeptember 26 at 3:49 PM [C]ivic nationalists are instinctive conservatives who are “on our team” but due to ignorance of how racially tribal/ethnocentric nonwhites are (western whites are unique in our relative lack of ethnocentrism/racial tribalism), decades of “equality” propaganda and lies, coupled with sincere lack of ill-will toward nonwhites (niceness/generosity), advocate/support legal nonwhite immigration. We are running into interactions with these folks quite a bit obviously as our reach spreads. Some of them learn essentially instantly, some learn more slowly or get “turned off” by any talk of race. So how do we deal with “the civnat problem”? My take is that our initial goal is we must get the majority of the grassroots Right one step over the line from losing right to winning right – “no more nonwhite immigration, cuz nonwhites vote 70% Left”. (Not cuz “all nonwhites are bad” or “hate” or whatnot.) (Step 1 of redpill on race.) Then, getting past the inevitable “but maybe we can reach nonwhites” requires explaining why that won’t work (they are racially tribal like the whole world except western whites, and are very susceptible to the “our problems are whitey’s fault” narrative which trumps all other logical/factual voting considerations in their psychology), which is Step 2 of redpilling on race. If we avoid these 2 bare-minimum messages, we risk going thru a civil war only to set up civnat policies again afterwards. This would be utterly tragic and would mean our descendants would eventually have to fight the same battle again. On the other hand, the time will never be more ripe for us to teach civnats this essential lesson and collectively as the grassroots Right shed the lie of group equality, than right now and as TX turns purple then blue and we find ourselves electorally powerless due to immigration. The pain of losing electoral power combined with the visciousness and obvious ir-reciprocity of the anti-white narrative and the left’s other craziness shifting into hyperdrive and communism 2.0 (all of which is only a problem because nonwhite voting is empowering it, most whites vote right and consider it silly) – all of this creates the perfect storm for our people to learn this essential lesson. So there is no better time to preach and teach “race redpill steps 1 & 2” than now and the near future. And we propertarians are positioned perfectly to do it in a way that can achieve maximum effectiveness with minimum possible “turn off”/rejection, because a) we have powerful, interesting, truly innovative solutions that are attractive to any instinctive rightwinger (evidences to people that we are not “simple/dumb racists”), and b) we do not have a “hate” or “ill-will” or “mockery” vibe. We can’t pass up this oppurtunity. If we avoid steps 1 & 2 of race redpilling for broader reach, our broader reach will accomplish little in the long run. The grassroots Right has to learn. And now is the perfect time to teach them.

  • Sovereigntarianism Requires Reciprocal Insurance: Love

    Sovereigntarianism Requires Reciprocal Insurance: Love. https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/sovereigntarianism-requires-reciprocal-insurance-love/


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 20:05:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179850063255949313