“Q: CURT: HOW CAN YOU ‘ACCUMULATE IRRESPONSIBILITY’?”
(because is a logical necessity that any responsibility is a ratio with capital, demonstrated interest, resources) https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1654119586373988354
Source date (UTC): 2023-05-04 13:46:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1654120345945755648
https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1654119586373988354
Well I just defined the term so that you would understand it, as a ratio of responsiblity to capital(resources). I think in and write in equilibria. In many things, such as reciprocity both sides of the equation are the same creating the equilibrium as a mirror. In other things, the equilibrium is not between people but between a positive and a negative, or between two scales. In this case between two dependent scales. You can’t have capital without defense (responsibilty) for producing maintaining using, and defending it. So you can accumulate or divest resources in relation to responsibility and accumulate and divest responsibility in relation to resources. Which is how I explain responsibility and sex differences in responsibility as the primary behavioral difference in social sciences:
Supply (resources) vs demand (responsibility)
AND
Supply (male) vs demand (female)
produced over time vs consumed in time
Producing polities vs producing offspring
Reply addressees: @TheAutistocrat @neoCamelist @WalterIII
Source date (UTC): 2023-05-04 13:43:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1654119586277605376
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1654117177161596929
RT @curtdoolittle: @44thstspectacle @enfuegosmom @terrilbruce @GregAbbott_TX Are there meaningful differences in genetics, abilities and de…
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-17 05:15:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1647831164130820103
Are there meaningful differences in genetics, abilities and demonstrated behavior between sexes, classes, civilizations, and races? (yes)
And can we list them? (yes)
Do we know the origin of these genetic and cultural differences? (yes)
Do those differences reflect stereotypes (the most accurate measure in social science)?
What is the most current most convincing evidence, and what lab and scientist(s) have counseled that we must come to terms with the science?
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-17 05:15:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1647831148364541953
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1647678220890951681
Are there meaningful differences in genetics, abilities and demonstrated behavior between sexes, classes, civilizations, and races? (yes)
And can we list them? (yes)
Do we know the origin of these genetic and cultural differences? (yes)
Do those differences reflect stereotypes (the most accurate measure in social science)?
What is the most current most convincing evidence, and what lab and scientist(s) have counseled that we must come to terms with the science?
Reply addressees: @44thstspectacle @enfuegosmom @terrilbruce @GregAbbott_TX
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-17 05:15:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1647831148293226497
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1647678220890951681
It’s relatively easy to create a non-criminal AI because all of social science is reducible to tests of demonstrated interests (think ownership, whether whole or in part). But a truthful, non-criminal AI would be politely rude.
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-16 13:23:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1647591637839691778
Reply addressees: @seanonolennon
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1647391415281029121
Youre conflating demonstrated behavior, with religious dogma and institutional enforcement of it.
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-10 19:09:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645504172819660801
Reply addressees: @enigma3078
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645467882803929088
ROTHBARD-HOPPE vs DOOLITTLE
Hans hoppe’s argumentation ethics begins with the premise that if we forgo violence then we recognize the demonstrated interests (property) of one another. This idea is via habermas (marxist), and both Hoppe and Habermas are Kantian (verbal) Rationalists.
My work is based entirely on the science and resulting operational (not verbal) logic of the first principles of the universe. As such, we always have choice of violence, exchange, or boycott. So, violence is never off the table, and all ethics and morality are constructed from avoiding, minimizing, and prohibiting providing incentves for violence that is always present.
The principle difference is in Hoppe/Rothbard’s use of intersubjectively verifiable property – a near prohibition on commons, and a license for free-riding, versus my use of demonstrated interests – which is any investment humans have made, including the common.
In both cases all behavioral science both psychology, sociology, economics, and politics, are reducible to statements of demonstrated interest. But the Hoppe-Rothbard seeks to avoid responsibility for the commons and my work seeks to maximize responsibility for the commons.
The result is Rothbards via-positiva Jewish Pilpul and Critique of no-responsibility separatists, Hoppe’s via-positiva German Rationalism and Critique limited responsibility (free cities), and my (Doolittle’s) via-negativa science and operational logic of maximum responsibility of anglo rule of law of the empirical common concurrent natural law, and our three differences in scope of interest and responsibility.
I hope this helps.
Cheers
#libertarian @mises
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-10 13:20:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645416428206542849
ROTHBARD-HOPPE vs DOOLITTLE
Hans hoppe’s argumentation ethics begins with the premise that if we forgo violence then we recognize the demonstrated interests (property) of one another. This idea is via habermas (marxist), and both Hoppe and Habermas are Kantian (verbal) Rationalists.
My work is based entirely on the science and resulting operational (not verbal) logic of the first principles of the universe. As such, we always have choice of violence, exchange, or boycott. So, violence is never off the table, and all ethics and morality are constructed from avoiding, minimizing, and prohibiting providing incentves for violence that is always present.
The principle difference is in Hoppe/Rothbard’s use of intersubjectively verifiable property – a near prohibition on commons, and a license for free-riding, versus my use of demonstrated interests – which is any investment humans have made, including the common.
In both cases all behavioral science both psychology, sociology, economics, and politics, are reducible to statements of demonstrated interest. But the Hoppe-Rothbard seeks to avoid responsibility for the commons and my work seeks to maximize responsibility for the commons.
The result is Rothbards via-positiva Jewish Pilpul and Critique of no-responsibility separatists, Hoppe’s via-positiva German Rationalism and Critique limited responsibility (free cities), and my (Doolittle’s) via-negativa science and operational logic of maximum responsibility of anglo rule of law of the empirical common concurrent natural law, and our three differences in scope of interest and responsibility.
I hope this helps.
Cheers
#libertarian @mises
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-10 13:20:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645416428013604864
Bo,
Not quite. That’s a sketchy half truth:
1) You are making the case for an end to democracy, a restoration of parliament, and membership in parliament by demonstrated interest from demonstrated competency.
2) You are presuming that emotions are something more than a calculation of gains and losses given one’s intuition of one’s relative ability and cooperative market value overlayed on the masculine predator, systematizing, over-time, political bais vs the feminine, prey, empathizing, in time, interpersonal bias.
3) You are assuming that the only time we vote other than economically is when we are morally outraged, and that moral outrage is always explainable and either true or false.
4) And you’re not proposing that this problem can be solved by (a) separating men and women into different legislative houses (b) enacting the prohibition of false promise, baiting into hazard, in political ‘sales’ just as we do in commercial ‘sales’.
So you’re ‘spin’ here is only partly true: it’s true that people can be manipulated using false accusation of moral outrage, or false promise of moral good, or false promise we can violate the laws of the universe (scarcity, behavior, genetics) by social construction expressed as legislative construction. But it’s also true only because we make it legal to lie to them.
And that, it turns out, isn’t very difficult to fix.
cheers.
Reply addressees: @EPoe187
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-08 20:46:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1644803993485418497
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1644447523560648704