“GETTING TO DENMARK”
“Getting To Denmark” is a ‘term of art’ so to speak in political theory. It means, how do you produce a technologically advanced, high trust polity with high tolerance for redistribution and low political conflict.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-03 15:50:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/992068826903842816
“GETTING TO DENMARK”
“Getting To Denmark” is a ‘term of art’ or ‘term of convenience’ so to speak in political theory. It means, how do you produce a technologically advanced, high trust polity with high tolerance for redistribution and low political conflict.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-03 11:50:00 UTC
by Steve Pender Extending someone the privilege of assuming them to be trustworthy is costly (risk of theft, personal harm). Not extending the privilege of trust is also costly (extra security costs, loss of trade). Granting trust to one person but not another hinges on choosing which costs you want to pay at that time. Since humans are more averse to losing what they have than losing a potential gain, humans err on the side of protecting themselves and property, that is, they more often choose to pay for costs that reduce their losses. If you want to gain privilege, you must first convince the privilege-grantor that not trusting you is more expensive than trusting you. This means you must work on reducing your perceived risk to them. If people who look like you have a much higher rate of violence, you have 3 essential choices: 1) change your look enough that you are no longer categorized with them, 2) reduce the rate of violence of those who look like you so you are no longer categorized as a risk, or 3) increase the cost for others to perceive you as a risk. This 3rd option only reinforces the idea that you are in fact a risk (someone who imposes involuntary costs), and is therefore counterproductive.
by Steve Pender Extending someone the privilege of assuming them to be trustworthy is costly (risk of theft, personal harm). Not extending the privilege of trust is also costly (extra security costs, loss of trade). Granting trust to one person but not another hinges on choosing which costs you want to pay at that time. Since humans are more averse to losing what they have than losing a potential gain, humans err on the side of protecting themselves and property, that is, they more often choose to pay for costs that reduce their losses. If you want to gain privilege, you must first convince the privilege-grantor that not trusting you is more expensive than trusting you. This means you must work on reducing your perceived risk to them. If people who look like you have a much higher rate of violence, you have 3 essential choices: 1) change your look enough that you are no longer categorized with them, 2) reduce the rate of violence of those who look like you so you are no longer categorized as a risk, or 3) increase the cost for others to perceive you as a risk. This 3rd option only reinforces the idea that you are in fact a risk (someone who imposes involuntary costs), and is therefore counterproductive.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-cigna-study-reveals-loneliness-at-epidemic-levels-in-america-300639747.htmlDIVERSITY CREATES ISOLATION
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-cigna-study-reveals-loneliness-at-epidemic-levels-in-america-300639747.html
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-01 13:38:00 UTC
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-cigna-study-reveals-loneliness-at-epidemic-levels-in-america-300639747.htmlDIVERSITY CREATES ISOLATION
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-01 13:38:00 UTC
THE COST OF SOCIAL OPTIMISM
by Steve Pender
Extending someone the privilege of assuming them to be trustworthy is costly (risk of theft, personal harm). Not extending the privilege of trust is also costly (extra security costs, loss of trade). Granting trust to one person but not another hinges on choosing which costs you want to pay at that time. Since humans are more averse to losing what they have than losing a potential gain, humans err on the side of protecting themselves and property, that is, they more often choose to pay for costs that reduce their losses. If you want to gain privilege, you must first convince the privilege-grantor that not trusting you is more expensive than trusting you. This means you must work on reducing your perceived risk to them. If people who look like you have a much higher rate of violence, you have 3 essential choices: 1) change your look enough that you are no longer categorized with them, 2) reduce the rate of violence of those who look like you so you are no longer categorized as a risk, or 3) increase the cost for others to perceive you as a risk. This 3rd option only reinforces the idea that you are in fact a risk (someone who imposes involuntary costs), and is therefore counterproductive.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-01 11:03:00 UTC
LIBERTARIANISM FAILS BUT SOVEREIGNTY DOESN’T ––“How does libertarian/anarcho capitalism and aim to prevent company cooperation? If four health companies decided that they would hike prices and violently attack competition, what would stop them? They are health companies so can’t be boycotted.”—- Quora User Well, let’s keep in mind that Libertarianism is just Pilpul (Sophistry) for the suggestible but morally disposed. And so we can’t take anything Mises, Rothbard, or Hoppe or their anglo equivalents very seriously. While their work has grains of truth here and there, it’s only to obscure it’s falsehoods, deceptions, impossibilities and malincentives. Instead, if we simply look at western SOVEREIGNTY meaning RULE OF LAW, under RULE OF LAW of Torts, we individually own some things, familially own others, privately organize to own others, and publicly organize to own others. The only open community property we can seize is the opportunity created by the vast decrease in opportunity cost created by our the combination of our proximity and demand for reciprocity. So that without the state to interfere by providing license (privileges) to families, individuals, organizations, corporations of all kinds, then individuals and groups could bring suits in courts against violations of reciprocity (natural law) in any of those forms of property. As such while governments originally provided limited liability insurance that limited liability to the money invested in the corporation, they also granted all sorts of privileges by denying individuals and groups the right to sue private and public organizations for personal, private, and public property violations in the markets for goods, services, and information. So there is no reason you couldn’t organize a group of people to produce a ‘class action’ against a polluter, or a market manipulator under Rule of Law. The fact that you can’t today, means that we do not live under rule of law, but rule by legislation.
LIBERTARIANISM FAILS BUT SOVEREIGNTY DOESN’T ––“How does libertarian/anarcho capitalism and aim to prevent company cooperation? If four health companies decided that they would hike prices and violently attack competition, what would stop them? They are health companies so can’t be boycotted.”—- Quora User Well, let’s keep in mind that Libertarianism is just Pilpul (Sophistry) for the suggestible but morally disposed. And so we can’t take anything Mises, Rothbard, or Hoppe or their anglo equivalents very seriously. While their work has grains of truth here and there, it’s only to obscure it’s falsehoods, deceptions, impossibilities and malincentives. Instead, if we simply look at western SOVEREIGNTY meaning RULE OF LAW, under RULE OF LAW of Torts, we individually own some things, familially own others, privately organize to own others, and publicly organize to own others. The only open community property we can seize is the opportunity created by the vast decrease in opportunity cost created by our the combination of our proximity and demand for reciprocity. So that without the state to interfere by providing license (privileges) to families, individuals, organizations, corporations of all kinds, then individuals and groups could bring suits in courts against violations of reciprocity (natural law) in any of those forms of property. As such while governments originally provided limited liability insurance that limited liability to the money invested in the corporation, they also granted all sorts of privileges by denying individuals and groups the right to sue private and public organizations for personal, private, and public property violations in the markets for goods, services, and information. So there is no reason you couldn’t organize a group of people to produce a ‘class action’ against a polluter, or a market manipulator under Rule of Law. The fact that you can’t today, means that we do not live under rule of law, but rule by legislation.
You know, people have already touched on the related ideas above, but promiscuity breaks the compromise between male and female reproductive strategies and undermines the necessity of the family as the first organization (production of generations), in the hierarchy of cooperative organizations. The french and italians solve the problem through the sacredness of the family and ‘graceful philandering’ by both genders. Whether you adopt the zero tolerance of the anglos or the high tolerance of the french, is a choice of higher or lower stress. When we think of ourselves as equal rather than opposites that are compatible, and adopt individualism rather than compromise, we achieve in the inter generational social order, what we achieve in the socialist economy: an inability to calculate and cooperate, and a destruction of the intergenerational means of production.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-29 08:07:00 UTC