THE ‘GOOD’ IN RELIGION IS THE CIVIC RITUAL. NOT THE CONTENT
There is nothing in the bible that made the church good. They could have read greek legends and done good with them. It’s the ritual that matters, not the content. What the church spread was literacy, and diplomacy, and eventually natural law. The rest was a bucket of catastrophic lies.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-28 03:13:00 UTC
Hey, I’m a 1%’er and raised with noblesse oblige. Take care of the little people or they won’t fight for you. Fair Trade.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-26 06:43:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/735723074515963904
Reply addressees: @charlesmurray
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/726892024901832706
IN REPLY TO:
@charlesmurray
Just the ones who are willing to vote for Trump. And their wealthier brethren. https://t.co/amtC0nhHr8
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/726892024901832706
Social phenomenon are not deducible, only explainable. We acquire, and cooperate to acquire, and punish free riders. Simple.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-26 06:40:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/735722313891512320
Reply addressees: @charlesmurray
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/730332077355315200
IN REPLY TO:
@charlesmurray
Hilarious. Sociology openly describing itself as politicized, wondering if it can coexist with real science. https://t.co/4qEp4omshT
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/730332077355315200
The great sort continues, and exacerbates the limit to movement. More homogenous=more movement, diversity less. See EU vs USA
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-26 06:31:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/735720075173363714
Reply addressees: @charlesmurray
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/734070533776642050
IN REPLY TO:
@charlesmurray
Pick up and move to where the opportunities are. A great American tradition. Dying. https://t.co/FFY71ZM8Mo
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/734070533776642050
Humans suffer from pre-cooperative impulses for survival that are non rational for an AI to develop unless by design.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-23 15:04:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/734762049113317378
Reply addressees: @aparanjape @pmarca
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/734611335783272449
IN REPLY TO:
@aparanjape
“Google is doubling down on Artificial Intelligence as the next great phase of Computing” https://t.co/m3h0dcf7oV .. @pmarca
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/734611335783272449
Choices require a means of decidability. Property is the only decidable value that is calculable(rational)+cooperative.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-23 15:01:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/734761129499582465
Reply addressees: @aparanjape @pmarca
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/734611335783272449
IN REPLY TO:
@aparanjape
“Google is doubling down on Artificial Intelligence as the next great phase of Computing” https://t.co/m3h0dcf7oV .. @pmarca
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/734611335783272449
DEBATE VS PROSECUTION: THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMMONS OF LIBERTY.
(important)(If you read one article on liberty today, read this one)
The purpose of the DEBATE is to convince the audience – the audience is the judge. Ergo, debate is a political activity in which we seek to inform, persuade, and judge a question of commons.
Individuals argue, persuade, or discuss – engage in personal exchange, even if this exchange is only knowledge.
Prosecutors and Defendants attempt to defeat their opponents on grounds of harm – not the determination of a good – whether personal or common good.
While exchange may require consent, and while opinion on debate in the commons may or may not, prosecution does not. In fact, the purpose of prosecution is to pursue the truth regardless of the desires of the parties prosecuted.
The technique I have been developing is not one in which we assume (as does Hoppe) that parties have honest, ethical, moral, intentions, and that if we dislike anything whatsoever we can walk away from and let them do damage elsewhere – but that it is only after we prosecute their arguments in an attempt to see if they survive attempts at parasitism, that we can engage in exchange of ideas – and if not that we must not let them do damage elsewhere, and to demand restitution(recant) or punishment(shame) for their propositions.
This is the difference between the ‘libertarians’ who do not pay the cost of defending the commons, and those of us who desire the commons of a condition of liberty, and as such are willing to pay the high cost of constructing and maintaining the commons of liberty.
Now, I don’t generally engage in debate. I start from the first principle of cooperation: non-parasitism. I want to know how the other person is engaging in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, or deceit. If they are not engaging in those things then their argument survives, and we can then conduct a negotiation, discourse, conversation. I start with the assumption that all men seek to justify their parasitisms, and that liberty is constructed only when we forcibly suppress all parasitism, leaving only productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to productive(non-parasitic) externalities.
That this metaphysical value judgement – the difference between the attempt to escape responsibility for the commons while demanding its fruits, and the necessity of taking responsibility for the commons in order to enjoy the fruits of liberty – is where ‘libertarians’ err.
All that remains is to determine whether I am correct, and that this intuition of free riding on the commons, rather than constructing the commons, is produced by genetic consequence, normative consequence, or both.
At present, given only personal experience (because I have not yet found any data other than the pattern of argument in history, it certainly appears to be ‘both’.)
So while I do love, respect, and believe most ‘libertarians’ to be honest men, they are engaged in the argumentative support of a metaphysical value judgement like that of diasporic traders, migratory shepherds, and domestic slaves: free riding upon the commons while demanding liberty that can only be produced as a commons where words – like deeds, like property – are all not just respected, but vigorously DEFENDED.
In other words, people insufficiently domesticated that while they may engage in exchange, and may engage in animal husbandry, or engaging in hunting and gathering, they still are not engaging in production, and in fact are engaged in the same parasitism against the commons that their ancestors engaged upon the land as hunter gatherers, and as pastoralists, and as slaves, as gypsies, as roving merchants, and finally as credit money financial capitalists. All of these people may engage in trade, but they maintain parasitism upon the territorial and normative, and often, genetic commons.
Therefore,
Every man a Craftsman,
Every man a Warrior,
Every man a Juror.
Every man a Sheriff,
Every man a Prosecutor,
Every man a Judge.
Every man a Sovereign.
That is the only construction under which a condition of liberty is possible.
There are no free rides. You cannot walk away from error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit, any more than you can walk away from corruption, fraud, theft, violence, and murder.
Liberty is built by the actions of men who deny others **all** alternatives. Prosecution, Like Property, Like Truth, is a high tax to pay for liberty. But it is the only means by which liberty can be brought into existence: actions that cost us.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-17 03:40:00 UTC
HUMAN RIGHTS ARE LOGICALLY AND EMPIRICALLY NECESSARY FOR VOLUNTARY COOPERATION. YET VOLUNTARY COOPERATION IS NOT POSSIBLE IN ALL CULTURES.
(trigger warning: uncomfortable truths)
(a) We tend to conflate consumer capitalism and democracy but they have nothing to do with one another other than that they require extraordinary restraint in the behavior of the population. So when we say consumer capitalism we mean ‘the voluntary organization of production distribution trade and consumption’, and when we say socialism we mean ‘the involuntary organization of production distribution trade and consumption’. But we rarely say how difficult it is to produce a voluntary organization of any kind. A voluntary order requires individual property rights, money, prices, and a judicial system they can trust to adjudicate contracts in a consistent manner. Yet it is this judicial system (uncorrupted) that is so difficult for groups to evolve.
(b) We tend to confuse human (property) rights with political rights. They have nothing to do with one another. There is absolutely no reason that an absolute monarch, denying political power to any and all, while applying universal rule of law and universal standing, under natural law (human rights), could not guaranty those rights (except for the last few which were required by the communists and are impossible).
(c) There is no reason to expect that free speech, which includes false speech, or malicious speech, must be a human right – in fact, just the opposite: we can expect free true and truthful speech as a necessary human right, but not free speech without the constraint of truthfulness.
(d) The question whether very primitive people can make use of human rights without significant forcible, financial, and moral coercion is still open. Certainly in countries like india (little trust), Russia (low trust), countries like china (no-trust), and most of islam (tribal antagonism), then these rights might be almost impossible to preserve while at the same time preserving order.
(e) Human rights are a luxury good produced over generations by the incremental suppression of criminal, unethical, immoral, corrupt, religious, financial, and military behavior, using rule of law, while at the same time suppressing the reproduction of the lower classes such that nearly all remaining people in the population are of the genetic middle class (in IQ/impulsivity/aggression) through reproductive constraint.
(f) Islam (the Cairo Declaration) cannot tolerate the western human rights for the simple reason that Islam requires conformity to both the Pillars and Sharia, and as such men must be given respect even if not earned, treated as equals even if they are not, and systemically prevented from enlightenment. This difference between western eugenic and islamic dysgenic law has produced the significant difference in the behaviors of the civilizations, as well as the median IQ, the opposite levels of literacy, the opposite distributions of impulsivity and emotional expression, and the opposite levels of achievement in all fields. Ergo. Be careful what you consider ‘good’, and a ‘right’ for it may not produce a good, and may not be so much a right, but a permanent curse.
(g) China cannot also tolerate it (and perhaps should not) because the “Mythos” of the Chinese cannot tolerate scrutiny any more than the mythos of the Russians can tolerate scrutiny. China has a very difficult problem preserving the empire and perhaps should not try so hard, but given that she wants to reclaim her ‘status’ in the world (perhaps impossible, perhaps not), and given that the factionalization and civil wars in china have been a problem for so many centuries, and that the consequence for a power struggle would be so great for at least the Han, then it is somewhat understandable. The primary problem for the Chinese remains the inability to tolerate the truth in public discourse, in order to preserve ‘harmony’, while at the same time suppressing any desire for democracy (which has proven a unique western cultural luxury and not in fact a political good).
My recommendation for both China and Russia has been to just outlaw democracy and communism both as children of the same evil western minds, and focus instead on the empirical improvement of people’s lives, and the empirical reduction of corruption, and to ask the population and reporters to assist in the suppression of corruption, deceit, fraud, and crime.
But in countries where people either save face to lie (asia) or lie for tactical advantage (russia), it’s nearly impossible to fight corruption because it is the people themselves that are the problem. A government is just people.
https://www.quora.com/Is-human-rights-a-cultural-thing-that-simply-does-not-apply-to-cultures-that-do-not-support-them-Why-or-why-not
HUMAN RIGHTS ARE LOGICALLY AND EMPIRICALLY NECESSARY FOR VOLUNTARY COOPERATION. YET VOLUNTARY COOPERATION IS NOT POSSIBLE IN ALL CULTURES.
(trigger warning: uncomfortable truths)
(a) We tend to conflate consumer capitalism and democracy but they have nothing to do with one another other than that they require extraordinary restraint in the behavior of the population. So when we say consumer capitalism we mean ‘the voluntary organization of production distribution trade and consumption’, and when we say socialism we mean ‘the involuntary organization of production distribution trade and consumption’. But we rarely say how difficult it is to produce a voluntary organization of any kind. A voluntary order requires individual property rights, money, prices, and a judicial system they can trust to adjudicate contracts in a consistent manner. Yet it is this judicial system (uncorrupted) that is so difficult for groups to evolve.
(b) We tend to confuse human (property) rights with political rights. They have nothing to do with one another. There is absolutely no reason that an absolute monarch, denying political power to any and all, while applying universal rule of law and universal standing, under natural law (human rights), could not guaranty those rights (except for the last few which were required by the communists and are impossible).
(c) There is no reason to expect that free speech, which includes false speech, or malicious speech, must be a human right – in fact, just the opposite: we can expect free true and truthful speech as a necessary human right, but not free speech without the constraint of truthfulness.
(d) The question whether very primitive people can make use of human rights without significant forcible, financial, and moral coercion is still open. Certainly in countries like india (little trust), Russia (low trust), countries like china (no-trust), and most of islam (tribal antagonism), then these rights might be almost impossible to preserve while at the same time preserving order.
(e) Human rights are a luxury good produced over generations by the incremental suppression of criminal, unethical, immoral, corrupt, religious, financial, and military behavior, using rule of law, while at the same time suppressing the reproduction of the lower classes such that nearly all remaining people in the population are of the genetic middle class (in IQ/impulsivity/aggression) through reproductive constraint.
(f) Islam (the Cairo Declaration) cannot tolerate the western human rights for the simple reason that Islam requires conformity to both the Pillars and Sharia, and as such men must be given respect even if not earned, treated as equals even if they are not, and systemically prevented from enlightenment. This difference between western eugenic and islamic dysgenic law has produced the significant difference in the behaviors of the civilizations, as well as the median IQ, the opposite levels of literacy, the opposite distributions of impulsivity and emotional expression, and the opposite levels of achievement in all fields. Ergo. Be careful what you consider ‘good’, and a ‘right’ for it may not produce a good, and may not be so much a right, but a permanent curse.
(g) China cannot also tolerate it (and perhaps should not) because the “Mythos” of the Chinese cannot tolerate scrutiny any more than the mythos of the Russians can tolerate scrutiny. China has a very difficult problem preserving the empire and perhaps should not try so hard, but given that she wants to reclaim her ‘status’ in the world (perhaps impossible, perhaps not), and given that the factionalization and civil wars in china have been a problem for so many centuries, and that the consequence for a power struggle would be so great for at least the Han, then it is somewhat understandable. The primary problem for the Chinese remains the inability to tolerate the truth in public discourse, in order to preserve ‘harmony’, while at the same time suppressing any desire for democracy (which has proven a unique western cultural luxury and not in fact a political good).
My recommendation for both China and Russia has been to just outlaw democracy and communism both as children of the same evil western minds, and focus instead on the empirical improvement of people’s lives, and the empirical reduction of corruption, and to ask the population and reporters to assist in the suppression of corruption, deceit, fraud, and crime.
But in countries where people either save face to lie (asia) or lie for tactical advantage (russia), it’s nearly impossible to fight corruption because it is the people themselves that are the problem. A government is just people.
https://www.quora.com/Is-human-rights-a-cultural-thing-that-simply-does-not-apply-to-cultures-that-do-not-support-them-Why-or-why-not
PHILOSOPHICAL NEGATIVE FEEDBACK LOOPS?
Why has islam been a salted earth for trust, intellectual, and commercial development? Once islam was widely adopted by the conquered (host) peoples, why did they decline so rapidly? Why does islam remain so hostile to intelligence?
1) Innate inferiority of the adopting/conquered peoples
2) Universal breeding with african slaves.
3) Consequences of cousin marriage (inbreeding)
4) Consequences of failure to transform from migratory herder antagonistic norms to static cooperative farmer norms.
5) Problem of inability to control underclass reproduction among tribal, non-agrarian, non-commercial, peoples
6) Islam teaches freedom of emotional expression and ritual but not mental discipline? It teaches one must be respected not earn respect by his behavior? It teaches memorization but not innovation? It teaches conformity but not meritocracy? In other words, it consists of fully negative feedback loops?
So, basically, have I just said that islam consists of a nothing but negative feedback loops? It’s tenets produce the precise opposite of western civilization?
Would the west have been so dominant without the discovery of the New World and the colonization made possible by the lagging development of (a) north america/Australia (c) Caribbean, (b) Africa, (c) the fall of the islamic empires because of inability to adapt, (c) India, and (d) China (the opium trade which i regard as an evil)?
That said western ethics consist of almost exclusively positive feedback loops.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-11 09:40:00 UTC