All other civilizations conflate in order to escape competition. Ours is the only civilization that institutionalizes competition by the prevention of conflation.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-28 14:26:00 UTC
Theme: Cooperation
-
Sequence: Scale and Boundaries
—“This scales along a continuum (with increasing fragility and negative effects as scale increases): The tribe is a softening of family boundaries through intermarriage and mutually beneficial collective action. The nation state is a dissolution of tribal boundaries through ideology or forced submission. Globalism is the suppression of nation state boundaries through fraud and deceit.”— #barbarianeconomist
-
Sequence: Scale and Boundaries
—“This scales along a continuum (with increasing fragility and negative effects as scale increases): The tribe is a softening of family boundaries through intermarriage and mutually beneficial collective action. The nation state is a dissolution of tribal boundaries through ideology or forced submission. Globalism is the suppression of nation state boundaries through fraud and deceit.”— #barbarianeconomist
-
The Game Theory of Sovereignty
Game Theory of Sovereignty (by William Butchman) a) Eli’s Theorem: “If you would be SOVEREIGN, you must fight. If you would win, you must confederate. If you would confederate, you must compromise. If you would compromise, you must accept limits on your actions. SOVEREIGNTY will be won only by those who desire to exercise it within limits considered reasonable by their peers.” b) Aristocratic Egalitarianism: Given the non-negotiable necessity of compromise inherit in confederation, Peerage is necessary, meaning that an egalitarianism is inherit within the circle of confederates, members cannot be subordinates under compulsion, members are equals. Conversely, despotism/tyranny destroys the incentive to cooperate thus: execution of tyrants (Julius Caesar). limited monarchy: Magna Carta, constitutional monarchy. c) Meritocracy (open entrance into aristocracy): As the sovereigns (aristocrats) will always be a tiny minority and the demands of sovereignty are great (expensive), a common strategy is to distribute the cost as widely as possible. So, rather than actively suppressing entrance to the Peerage, the incentive to encourage (maximize) entrance by all who display the desire and ability: Meritocracy. d) War: Sovereignty may only be won through martial prowess. e) Science: The high cost of war creates great incentive for an accurate understanding of the physical universe, that military action may be prosecuted successfully. f) Contractualism: The high cost of military action demands that the participants swear oaths of loyalty even to death and then deliver on those oaths, formalized into contracts of cooperation. g) Trust: Inherent in contract, which is a promise to pay, is the concept of trust. (I feel like this is not explanatory enough).
-
The Game Theory of Sovereignty
Game Theory of Sovereignty (by William Butchman) a) Eli’s Theorem: “If you would be SOVEREIGN, you must fight. If you would win, you must confederate. If you would confederate, you must compromise. If you would compromise, you must accept limits on your actions. SOVEREIGNTY will be won only by those who desire to exercise it within limits considered reasonable by their peers.” b) Aristocratic Egalitarianism: Given the non-negotiable necessity of compromise inherit in confederation, Peerage is necessary, meaning that an egalitarianism is inherit within the circle of confederates, members cannot be subordinates under compulsion, members are equals. Conversely, despotism/tyranny destroys the incentive to cooperate thus: execution of tyrants (Julius Caesar). limited monarchy: Magna Carta, constitutional monarchy. c) Meritocracy (open entrance into aristocracy): As the sovereigns (aristocrats) will always be a tiny minority and the demands of sovereignty are great (expensive), a common strategy is to distribute the cost as widely as possible. So, rather than actively suppressing entrance to the Peerage, the incentive to encourage (maximize) entrance by all who display the desire and ability: Meritocracy. d) War: Sovereignty may only be won through martial prowess. e) Science: The high cost of war creates great incentive for an accurate understanding of the physical universe, that military action may be prosecuted successfully. f) Contractualism: The high cost of military action demands that the participants swear oaths of loyalty even to death and then deliver on those oaths, formalized into contracts of cooperation. g) Trust: Inherent in contract, which is a promise to pay, is the concept of trust. (I feel like this is not explanatory enough).
-
“This scales along a continuum (with increasing fragility and negative effects a
—“This scales along a continuum (with increasing fragility and negative effects as scale increases): The tribe is a softening of family boundaries through intermarriage and mutually beneficial collective action. The nation state is a dissolution of tribal boundaries through ideology or forced submission. Globalism is the suppression of nation state boundaries through fraud and deceit.”— #barbarianeconomist
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-21 09:39:00 UTC
-
Living in a house with other men, and hiring a housekeeper/cook is cheaper and m
Living in a house with other men, and hiring a housekeeper/cook is cheaper and more satisfying than living in a house with a woman that is less than a constant joy.
Thankfully, aside from being soft and smelling good, there are a lot of women to live with that are a constant joy. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-13 09:35:00 UTC
-
(by Bill Joslin ) —“One consideration. With interspecies cooperation, for exam
(by Bill Joslin )
—“One consideration. With interspecies cooperation, for example, badgers and coyote are hunting groundhogs together, the overall chance of killing game increases for both over the long term. This gives the incentive to tolerate a competitor. The notion of cooperation born of outgroup warfare presupposes an outgroup which is already cooperating.
The distinction between non-cooperative social species (deer, apes, monkeys) and cooperative social species rests with resource gathering.
Non-cooperative social species do not cooperate in resource gathering. Each provides for themselves but do so in a proximity to others. This reduces the chance of death due to predation (run faster than your mate). This fits your above model – defense against outgroup threats.
Cooperative social species work collectively to gather resources with a rudimentary division of labor (Wolves hunting in a pack – rely on each other for survival – a deeper form of cooperation). In these cases pack size increases and decreases in proportion to the success of the pack. Caloric access would stand as a bigger driver.
Familial structure and development of reason may provide some indication as to which applies to humans. Cooperative social species tend to have more developed “mind reading” than non-cooperative, and will seek out help from another. Social structure forms around the family structure as a single unit (mother, father, juvenile offspring, young offspring) oppose to harems.
This suggests to me that human lines were different than current primates in that we may have been predators (cooperative social animals) while they remain predominate scavengers with occasional hunting.
One other which comes to mind is interspecies cooperation, for example, coyotes and badgers hunting ground hogs (badgers are good at digging but not chasing escaped ground hogs – coyotes are better at chasing than digging.) Resource gathering and collective gains over the long run affords an incentive for each to tolerate the proximity of a “competitor” (tolerate each other) to the extent that they cooperate.
There seem to be two different incentive sets which result in cooperation as a survival strategy.
The later (cooperative social species) I think has a direct and stronger incentives to develop cooperative strategies, whereas the former tends to demonstrate looser ingroup bonds (loose half your troop to defection after a lost battle with a competitor).
These differing strategies may have converged in humans.”—
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-12 20:40:00 UTC
-
“Ahhhhh ah ha!. Calorie shortage acted as an incentive for cooperation which out
—“Ahhhhh ah ha!. Calorie shortage acted as an incentive for cooperation which outweighed ingroup predation and parasitism. An increase in cooperative innovations occurs. New and improved ways to cooperate overcomes calorie shortage. As calorie shortage diminishes parasitism becomes a more viable option due to an absence of a natural inhibitor! Thus the need for institutional (formal) suppression of parasitism.”—Bill Joslin
—in response to—
Cooperation boils down to property transfer?
Via negativa.
It’s more that the violations of cooperation boil down to involuntary transfer of property.
We cannot imagine all the ways we can cooperate.
We can however, catalog all the ways we had found to irritate. 😉
By avoiding the false and bad and ugly we leave room for all varieties of true, good, and beautiful
We have been programming ourselves forever for finding cooperation and rallying cooperation (via positiva). The problem of calorie shortage reinforces the value of that strategy.
But we are not living in an era of calorie shortage where we must IDENTIFY opportunities, and instead, in an era where we CHOOSE FROM plentiful opportunities by eliminating error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit.
I think this change from rallying to criticism is very important. A very important change in thought.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-12 09:14:00 UTC
-
Cooperation boils down to property transfer? Via negativa. It’s more that the vi
Cooperation boils down to property transfer?
Via negativa.
It’s more that the violations of cooperation boil down to involuntary transfer of property.
We cannot imagine all the ways we can cooperate.
We can however, catalog all the ways we had found to irritate. 😉
By avoiding the false and bad and ugly we leave room for all varieties of true, good, and beautiful
We have been programming ourselves forever for finding cooperation and rallying cooperation (via positiva). The problem of calorie shortage reinforces the value of that strategy.
But we are not living in an era of calorie shortage where we must IDENTIFY opportunities, and instead, in an era where we CHOOSE FROM plentiful opportunities by eliminating error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit.
I think this change from rallying to criticism is very important. A very important change in thought.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-12 01:54:00 UTC