—“Wishful thinking is just intellectual free riding”—Ryan Williams
(brilliant)
I suppose now I have to go thru and express ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and obscurantism, fictionalism , and deceit in the same terms…… Thanks Ryan. As if I didn’t have enough work to do. 😉 (great insight)
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 19:41:00 UTC
THE DIFFERENCES IN LEFT AND RIGHT ARGUMENTS?
“In order to obscure or justify or force an involuntary transfer, or prohibit the imposition of an involuntary behavioral cost, the LEFT uses…” (argumentative tactic)
— vs.–
“In order to prevent an involuntary transfer and impose an involuntary behavioral cost, the RIGHT uses…” (argumentative tactic)
The left lacks agency physical, emotional, and intellectual. The right possesses agency: physical, emotional, intellectual.
(thanks to Skye Stewart)
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 19:32:00 UTC
THE TEST OF TRUTH VS LIES IS EASY:
Libertarianism = rights w/o obligations
-vs-
Sovereignty = only possible to posses rights in exchange for obligations (reciprocal insurance)
Libertarianism = “gimme” = Permission or gift = limited only by my willingness to exit. (pastoralists)
-vs-
Sovereignty = “fight to insure each other” = Exchange = Limited by market demand. (land holders)
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 14:24:00 UTC
THE DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO PRESERVE THE TERM “LIBERTARIANISM” NOW THAT ROTHBARDIANISM IS FALSIFIED.
SOVEREIGNTY(made) !=FREEDOM(given) != LIBERTY(permitted)
“Libertarianism is….”
So, which thing are you talking about?
Sovereignty?
The earning of freedom (freeman)
The liberty of the freed slave?
The liberty of license to retain local laws?
The liberty of taking license with norms?
The Liberty of the french – political equality?
The Liberty of the English – permission from the crown
The Libertarian of the American – against marxism
The Libertarian of the Rothbardian – against commons.
One asks permissions from god and permissions from the government. A sovereign simply *IS* sovereign because his agency cannot be imposed upon by a third party.
Which of those two are the origins of western civilization?
Liberty, or sovereignty?
HISTORY OF TERMS:
—“At first of persons; of communities, “state of being free from arbitrary, despotic, or autocratic rule or control” is from late 15c.
The French notion of liberty is political equality; the English notion is personal independence. [William R. Greg, “France in January 1852” in “Miscellaneous Essays”]”—
—“Political sense of “person advocating the greatest possible liberty in thought and conduct” is from 1878. As an adjective by 1882. U.S. Libertarian Party founded in Colorado, 1971. Related: Libertarianism (1849 in religion, 1901 in politics).”—
THESE ARE PERMISSIONS – NOT SOVEREIGNTY
WHY DOES IT MATTER?
The abrahamic use of half truths and terminological appropriation to grant meaning and authority or gravity or persuasive power to that which does not possess it.
So. If as true, the political philosophy of libertarianism > anarcho capitlism was in fact invented by rothbard as the Rothbardian’s claim, then I have killed libertarianism (and I think that’s settled.)
If you want to do as hayek did, and use the word libertarian to refer to classical liberalism. Well, that’s a part of the democratic revolution against aristocracy and the church by the middle class, as part of the enlightenment.
If you want to recast the middle class pursuit of liberty by permission as an imitation of the origional sovereignty of western civilization, that might convey ‘meaning’ out of ‘ease’ but is is not TRUE.
If you want to claim the basis of western civlization is LIBERTY AND LIBERTARIANISM that is simply false. It’s not even logically possible.
HEROISM > SOVEREIGNTY > THE OATH/THE JURY/RULE OF LAW > MARKETS IN EVERYTHING
That is the sequence and I can find no falsification of it.
What I find is a lot of traditionalists trying to state falsehoods to preserve their malinvestments.
THIS IS WHY I REQUIRE OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE: TO DEFEAT THE ABRAHAMIC TECHNIQUES OF DECEPTION.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 14:02:00 UTC
(working on lying)
The left uses shaming (ridicule, shaming, disapproval/rejection), double standards(and special pleading), emotion as evidence of harm ….
What techniques do they use?
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 10:17:00 UTC
OUR CHOICE: EUGENIC SCIENTIFIC TRUTH OR DYSGENIC ABRAHAMIC LIES
Don’t be stupid.
We had the consequences of the anglo enlightenment 17th. then the french 18th. then the german 19th, then the jewish 20th. And we’re dealing with the muslim failure to adapt to it today.
The question is whether the aristocratic scientific eugenic and progressive or the underclass abrahamic, dysgenic and regressive will succeed. It’s the choice between another age of innovation, or another dark age of abrahamic superstition and ignorance.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 09:37:00 UTC
I know Montaigne said it first, but I have found it to be true: that others generally think ill of us for things we did not do, did not intend, or had no incentives to do, or had completely different intentions and incentives. Yet those things we do that are intentionally unethical, immoral, and evil so much more frequently go unnoticed. People criticize what they see. They too often imagine ill behind what they see. Because they project upon others their own intuitions. All the while, blind to the incentives, and the consequences they don’t see.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-27 10:40:00 UTC
It’s ok if I come off defensive. How many challenges of substance do I get? Or are they ad hom’s, special pleading, justifications for preserving self deceptions, retaliation for slaying a sacred cow?
So I tell you what. Find someone who is making a substantive argument where you think I’m being defensive rather than ‘returning the insult that was given in kind’, or ‘preventing a dishonest or false argument from sticking’ or ‘using the argument with the person for illustrative purposes’, or ‘holding the person to a false argument until they must depart or surrender so that they can’t claim success.”
I want to see one.
I do.
Because in general I find that people use projection to insinuate or suggest I have incentives and use methods other than those that I do and am open and honest about.
Here is the truth: I use the audience to learn. In large part because it is very difficult for me to understand the thoughts and feelings of ‘ordinary people’. But I cannot let others poison the well for me.
I keep a record of everything I do.
So just as I am not letting you get away with a bullshit accusation, I don’t let others get away with bullshit accusations and framings.
And that is what you call being ‘defensive’.
And I call it ‘prosecuting ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deception for the purpose of maintaining the informational commons.’
In other words, I practice what I preach.
(jay dyer, rick storey, josh, that one christian-ancap guy whose name I forget… there are any number of people who are trying to preserve self deceptions (sacred cows). it’s ok. I understand. But I get very few interesting criticisms to work with. I learn what I must do by arguing with every one of them. but I’m not going to let them get away with it while talking to me. I will keep with the argument until I understand what falsehood they are trying to protect, and then attack it.)
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-26 12:23:00 UTC
WE AND OUR LIES OF SELF PROTECTION
We all collect identities (“I feel, think, and act like a person who thinks feels and acts by these criteria”) both as tools, as goals in pursuit of self image, as standards of measurement, and as self deceptions in lieu of achievement – in order to lie to ourselves about our status.
We all use identities for nothing other than the usually literary model of Transcendence > Monomyth > Archetype > Plot > Virtues > Assets (property-in-toto) > Status. In other words, role playing a character. When we know that the archetypes map to personality types.
We can deflate all identities into attempts at acquisition both real and illusory. (acquisitionism)
There is nothing that one can experience that we cannot communicate without deceit (pretence, fictionalism, lying).
And attempts to say otherwise are attempts to preserve self deceptions.
In other words, I have not yet found anything that cannot be converted into scientific language. I have only found people making attempts to preserve deceptions.
This is what psychologist get paid for: what lie do we tell ourselves and how can we correct it by eliminating the trauma or feeling that prevents us from avoiding it.
SO TO THOSE WHO CLAIM THEY PURSUE TRUTH AND WISDOM:
Why is it you need to preserve the lies?
Because the only answer is, that you are weak or cowardly.
“In other words, LARPING”
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 20:54:00 UTC
OK. (FRUSTRATED) I’M GOING TO DOUBLE DOWN ON ATTACKING SELF DECEPTION.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 20:42:00 UTC