There is no other kind of mind than utilitarian. Only differences in what utility we seek.
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-22 12:52:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1738180739328311638
Reply addressees: @AionLupus
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1738112262949269769
WHY DO LIBERTARIANS NOT UNDERSTAND MONEY?
I’m not engaging in this conversation because I don’t feel like debating at this late hour. But no, you’re parroting jewish libertarian dogma not the evidence or the logic – though this is admittedly a subject fraught with ambiguity that makes the discussion challenging.
Money, as the term is used, is a catgory.
Yes. Money proper consists only of commodity money.
Most all other money in the category of money is a commodity money substitute.
Fiat Currency is a money substitute that for all intents and purposes is a divisible share of the economy of the state.
The benefit of Credit Money and Fiat Currency is the end of shortages of money which allow money-holders to rent seek via interest on the growth in demand they did not contribute to – the people and the government did.
This is why jewish libertarians object to fiat money – it deprived the money changers of rent seeking. And the Jewish strategy is to discover and exploit all possible means of baiting into hazard, rent seeking, and winning whether the other party wins or loses.
All jewish libertarianism seeks to restore the utility of baiting into hazard, asymmetric risk, rent seeking, and privatization of commons vs socialization of losses. That is the purpose of jewish libertariamism.
I don’t know anyone who has done more work on this subject than I have, and while Mises took a good shot with what he took from Simmel and Weber, and perhaps I rely on that work of his above anyone other than Simmel in my ‘sciencing’ of money.
Reply addressees: @Tu_Quoque_4_U @Thaeus4 @bryanbrey @saifedean @R_Tyler_Smith
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-21 05:29:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1737706956041699328
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1737687862470979908
Putin more so than the rest of the government made a profound mistake by using the military rather than money to obtain ukrainian territory that ukrainians themselves would have happily ‘sold’ off to RU before the 2014 invasion. THe problem is Putin is excessively paranoid, he will not talk honestly to the american people (and his people won’t to him), and he depends too much on talking to peers, instead (of like israel) appealing to the american people. This is inconcievable to Putin – so he screwed up.
You are incorrect that RU is working to survive. Instead, as far as I can tell, and I am not ignorant of these matters, they are dying and trying to find a way to conquer so they don’t die.
The west will be fine as long as we continue our trajectory and (a) end or reverse islamic immigration and (b) separate female and male voters and equally suppress female natural antisocial and antipolitical behavior that is their nature.
Reply addressees: @hollowconkers @entelechhhy
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-20 19:49:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1737560755820511233
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1737559769521754523
Projecting your agenda on everything isn’t a sign of wisdom but of bias. In your case you are loading moral and political preferences on what should be a prediction from incentives of the parties involved. I know enough about you from a few interactions that you can do better.
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-17 04:34:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1736243571097801198
Reply addressees: @OooBardam
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1736231068112404612
That makes no sense. Europe is already talking about the money to be made by labor and crafsmen rebuilding the country.
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-17 00:03:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1736175301770555405
Reply addressees: @OooBardam
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1736141048378737091
–“Greece shouldn’t have been allowed to adopt the euro.”–
And they should have clamped down on (a) the size of he bureaucracy, and (b) tax evasion which is endemic, and they shouldn’t have used the low intrerest rates to fuel a housing boom to absorb their underperforming labor markets, because of their underperforming government in producing a globally competitive economy.
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-15 17:28:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1735713537186500610
As brandon says, we have solved that problem. But to apply that solution means we need enough people on the same page to generate incentive for others. This is why we’ve moved from R&D to advocacy this year. To build that coalition.
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-14 17:54:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1735357631512875185
Reply addressees: @betterbuiltpool @ThruTheHayes
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1735341197860700286
Darwinian calculation of evolutionary superiority (advantage) by adversarial competition. Meaning the lower half serves the purpose of incentivizing the upper alf what not to do more so than any other purpose.
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-14 09:16:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1735227231914402252
Reply addressees: @NWOBruh
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1735135261984477276
Polygamy is still tolerated in most countries – the problem is very few men can afford it. With the economy favoring women (at least at present – it’s not clear that’s true with AI eviscerating administrative jobs) the cost of a ‘stable’ of women is radically reduced. Yet for women, the benefit of sharing a household and man with other women, lowering the cost of each woman’s participation in the household and in maintaining the man, is decreasing. So we are left once again with intersexual relations that are in a hierarchy from permanent to temporary, to fractional.
The incentive to marry was a produce of agrarianism+herding and the incentive to marry today, in the current economy isn’t really more than just the cost of household income vs individual income.
Reply addressees: @diegocaleiro @william_lpp
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-13 16:29:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1734973741346504704
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1734967384040182218
James Lindsay’s Suggestion for Academic Incentives
Note: Given that the term science is simply an application of legal testimony, our organization’s proposal is the same regardless of context, which is to use the courts to punish those who publish other than testifiable testimony (science) as doing harm to the public commons of information. This includes charges of sedition against the constitution of natural, common, concurrent law. This (a) causes academic insurance (b) creates a network outside of the academy – which will logically consist of retired academics – that profits from ‘clearing’ the academy of bias and deceit.
LINDSAY”S SOLUTION
via James Lindsay @ConceptualJames
The holy has to be defended from the profane. In a Classically Liberal system that doesn’t mean existing knowledge cannot be questioned, but it does mean it has to resist subversion. Good-faith criticism and bad-faith criticism (ruthless critique) have to be distinguished.
Academics might not even be equipped for this job, to be honest, but that made them poor guardians of the effective heart of the systems depending on their charge. We’re paying the price for this now and trying to salvage what we can before the library is burned.
If you’re going to be the high priests of the canon of knowledge, you had damned well better be able to protect that canon’s integrity. Various incentive structures, specialization, etc., led to the academic goal being merely to ADD TO the canon of knowledge. But who defends it?
There is actually a simple structural reform to this that is clearly necessary. Rather than granting PhDs, tenure, advancement, glory, etc., to academics merely for doing “new” research, academia must start elevating people who successfully do academic cleanup, rigorously.
There’s a key difference between a Magisterium, which checks against orthodoxy, and what I’m saying here, though. Academia is already a poisoned Mystical Magisterium of Social Gnosticism. That’s rigor according to rationality and especially skepticism (checking against evidence).
The Library, to use the metaphor, almost deserves to be burned because it’s rotted through with parasitical pseudo-knowledge, critical magick, outright corruption, and nonsense posing as profundity, but there’s too much wheat to burn it all as chaff. This is important.
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-11 17:22:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1734262451850342400