Feb 8, 2020, 9:39 AM
—“Lots of pro-boogaloo folks and others are looking for solutions. It starts with being pro-second Amendment. Then they identify the enemy.. Then they start looking for Solutions. Only Propertarianism actually offers solutions. For the price that is going to be paid for a chance to fix this wreck, it had better work.”—Rick Tavi
Feb 8, 2020, 9:39 AM
—“Lots of pro-boogaloo folks and others are looking for solutions. It starts with being pro-second Amendment. Then they identify the enemy.. Then they start looking for Solutions. Only Propertarianism actually offers solutions. For the price that is going to be paid for a chance to fix this wreck, it had better work.”—Rick Tavi
Feb 8, 2020, 9:42 AM by Brandon Hayes Curt: The Overton window is taking abuse. We push on it from the inside so it expands. There are also people on both fringes pulling the edges of discourse from the outside. We’re breaking the window frame; and we ought to. Discourse is all acceptable; it’s certain action that isn’t. So, we’re crushing a concept. As the window opens more perspective frames break. I’ve been attempting to frame the conversation around the edges so previous frames of for sense-making that offered clarity become obsolete. (Say capitalism/socialism… the frame is false; we’re forcing the issue). Your timeline has always been money from what I could tell. The future has events that provide clarity/turning points. (2020 election for instance) At this point anything that alters the emotional underlay of the populace suites us because emotional breakdowns are perspective altering. The detractors, those that look to minimize emotional fluctuations only work to create emotional fragility and unstable frames (as they are emotionally based). [All chaos suites those that can reinstitute order. We’re the only ones offering anything fair] No one can survive sanely inside themselves searching for happiness. The recent JBP breakdown proves the solid open individualist frame [the one JBP purports as paramount] doesn’t hold up under pressure to change the whole world. It crumbles and falls apart because it’s more than anyone can do. See I believe it’s ok to need others. It’s necessary. I’ve been lucky to have those I can lean and depend on. I have been blessed with those I can trust. And now I have a system to vet everyone and can teach it to everyone else. (Thank you) We’re winning and people join winning teams. It’s a matter of getting them to put their money where their mouth is. And since money is abundant and it’s time that’s scarce; they have every reason.
Feb 8, 2020, 9:42 AM by Brandon Hayes Curt: The Overton window is taking abuse. We push on it from the inside so it expands. There are also people on both fringes pulling the edges of discourse from the outside. We’re breaking the window frame; and we ought to. Discourse is all acceptable; it’s certain action that isn’t. So, we’re crushing a concept. As the window opens more perspective frames break. I’ve been attempting to frame the conversation around the edges so previous frames of for sense-making that offered clarity become obsolete. (Say capitalism/socialism… the frame is false; we’re forcing the issue). Your timeline has always been money from what I could tell. The future has events that provide clarity/turning points. (2020 election for instance) At this point anything that alters the emotional underlay of the populace suites us because emotional breakdowns are perspective altering. The detractors, those that look to minimize emotional fluctuations only work to create emotional fragility and unstable frames (as they are emotionally based). [All chaos suites those that can reinstitute order. We’re the only ones offering anything fair] No one can survive sanely inside themselves searching for happiness. The recent JBP breakdown proves the solid open individualist frame [the one JBP purports as paramount] doesn’t hold up under pressure to change the whole world. It crumbles and falls apart because it’s more than anyone can do. See I believe it’s ok to need others. It’s necessary. I’ve been lucky to have those I can lean and depend on. I have been blessed with those I can trust. And now I have a system to vet everyone and can teach it to everyone else. (Thank you) We’re winning and people join winning teams. It’s a matter of getting them to put their money where their mouth is. And since money is abundant and it’s time that’s scarce; they have every reason.
Feb 10, 2020, 9:46 AM Monarchy (kinship priesthood) … Aristocracy( military priesthood) … … Judiciary (legal priesthood) … … … Nobility (Familial Priesthood) … … … … Priesthood (Emotional Priesthood) … … … … … The People (production of generations, goods, services, and information)
Feb 10, 2020, 9:46 AM Monarchy (kinship priesthood) … Aristocracy( military priesthood) … … Judiciary (legal priesthood) … … … Nobility (Familial Priesthood) … … … … Priesthood (Emotional Priesthood) … … … … … The People (production of generations, goods, services, and information)
Feb 10, 2020, 8:36 PM When you say you hold X values:
(a) What are you not accounting for and not accounting for? (b) How does your opinion hold up against the kantian imperative, ‘if everyone did that then’? (Which is just the same as the conservative intuition). (c) How does your opinion hold up against the kantian imperative in competition with hostile parties within your polity intent on depriving you of your choice or preference? (d) How does your opinion hold up against the kantian imperative in competition with hostile parties external to your polity intent on depriving you of your choice or preference? (e) So again, what are you accounting for, or failing to account for? Values only matter within the limits of the market for tolerance of them in the circumstance – in other words, values are a luxury good produced by reciprocity within the limits of proportionality within the limits of the available geography, ecology, political ecology, economy, location, and time and space. Demands (Necessities) vs Preferences (Values)
Feb 10, 2020, 8:36 PM When you say you hold X values:
(a) What are you not accounting for and not accounting for? (b) How does your opinion hold up against the kantian imperative, ‘if everyone did that then’? (Which is just the same as the conservative intuition). (c) How does your opinion hold up against the kantian imperative in competition with hostile parties within your polity intent on depriving you of your choice or preference? (d) How does your opinion hold up against the kantian imperative in competition with hostile parties external to your polity intent on depriving you of your choice or preference? (e) So again, what are you accounting for, or failing to account for? Values only matter within the limits of the market for tolerance of them in the circumstance – in other words, values are a luxury good produced by reciprocity within the limits of proportionality within the limits of the available geography, ecology, political ecology, economy, location, and time and space. Demands (Necessities) vs Preferences (Values)
Feb 10, 2020, 8:43 PM by Stephen Thomas
–“What’s your position on (hostile political) ‘critics’ that we have seen Israel, the Saudis, and the Russians execute?”–
Define “critic”. 1) Is the critic exposing factual information or behavior showing violations of Natural Law? Or 2) Is the critic simply whining about having failed to have his wants served by others? Or 3) Is the critic engaging in ORRGSM (subversion) and causing damage to the Commons with their lies? The first is necessary to protect the Commons from parasites (EMAS). The second is well… pathetic and sometimes healthy. Venting to avoid potential turmoil. The 3rd is unacceptable and must be stopped. Assassination is usually extreme but sometimes warranted. So, the critic defines the validity of the response. A critic should also provide solutions or their words have no legitimacy.
CD: note how Stephen based his argument on the natural law, and used a series(precision), and then answered with the series rather than a single ideal type (average). This is how you answer questions in natural law.
Feb 10, 2020, 8:43 PM by Stephen Thomas
–“What’s your position on (hostile political) ‘critics’ that we have seen Israel, the Saudis, and the Russians execute?”–
Define “critic”. 1) Is the critic exposing factual information or behavior showing violations of Natural Law? Or 2) Is the critic simply whining about having failed to have his wants served by others? Or 3) Is the critic engaging in ORRGSM (subversion) and causing damage to the Commons with their lies? The first is necessary to protect the Commons from parasites (EMAS). The second is well… pathetic and sometimes healthy. Venting to avoid potential turmoil. The 3rd is unacceptable and must be stopped. Assassination is usually extreme but sometimes warranted. So, the critic defines the validity of the response. A critic should also provide solutions or their words have no legitimacy.
CD: note how Stephen based his argument on the natural law, and used a series(precision), and then answered with the series rather than a single ideal type (average). This is how you answer questions in natural law.