Oct 13, 2019, 6:59 AM by Alain Dwight All money is a share in a particular economy. Having money generated by a predefined, publicly visible algorithm might be a step closer to rule of law in finance, but it’s not a full accounting rule of law for finance and it doesn’t magically make the economy it represents more valuable. To raise the value of shares, rule of law still needs to be applied and enforced separately, at which point crypto’s only advantage (I know of) would be transactions that are marginally more efficient (if true), which would be a fringe benefit, not a revolutionary shift. You can write software to help expose, cut out, and compete with the parasites but that’s going to hit a hard limit, unless you address the underlying issue (a comprehensive plan to replace parasitic control of law w/ rule of law and high trust).
Theme: Institution
-
Yes I Advocate Collective (group) Punishment.
Oct 13, 2019, 11:33 AM it’s how we end the game against us. If you gain value from an identity from a membership, then you must insure the rest of us from the consequences of the organization you fund by your membership. Families insure individuals, individuals insure groups, and no one is free of insuring others.
-
Yes I Advocate Collective (group) Punishment.
Oct 13, 2019, 11:33 AM it’s how we end the game against us. If you gain value from an identity from a membership, then you must insure the rest of us from the consequences of the organization you fund by your membership. Families insure individuals, individuals insure groups, and no one is free of insuring others.
-
Scale and The Store of Trust
Oct 15, 2019, 2:22 PM Jonathan Haidt on his book The Coddling of the American Mind standard.co.uk https://standard.co.uk/lifestyle/books/jonathan-haidt-the-coddling-of-the-american-mind-a4261081.html? SCALE AND THE STORE OF TRUST by Luke Weinhagen ( CD: I’m Sharing because of this bit of genius:
—“The system can not scale beyond its ability to generate and store trust and begins to fail immediately when the extraction of stored trust exceeds the production of trust. That store can act as a buffer during a period of backsliding (and can enable a lot of really destructive behavior in the guise of “tolerance”), but it will not save us.”— Luke Weinhagen
) === COMPLETE POST ===
—-“We came out of a century that had some of the worst horrors in history but which made extraordinary progress on almost every conceivable front in the decades afterwards, and now we’re backsliding.” — Jon Haidt
Putting this in the context I’ve been building over the last couple weeks, the “progress” Haidt is describing (from my perspective) are the mechanisms we developed to foster the development of trust that became possible through the shared exposure to those horrors. I agree with both Haidt and Doolittle in that the outcome of this backsliding in inevitable should it continue. The lesson will impose itself. Whether we learn from it, kindly or not, is another matter. Looking at Curt’s response in the same context I’ve been using –
“…conspicuous consumption of compromises between genes, gender, class, and interests” = extraction of trust. “…cooperative necessity in social orders…” = mechanisms for the production of trust
The system can not scale beyond its ability to generate and store trust and begins to fail immediately when the extraction of stored trust exceeds the production of trust. That store can act as a buffer during a period of backsliding (and can enable a lot of really destructive behavior in the guise of “tolerance”), but it will not save us. “Domestication” is the process of transcendence from each of the lower foundational rules of human interaction to the next higher form of interaction/expansion of the capacity to store trust. THE FOUNDATIONS 1. Via Positiva: ……. The Golden Rule. 2. Via Negativa: ….. The Silver Rule. 3. Via Logica: ……….The Natural Law of Reciprocity. 4. Via Existentia: …. Rule of Law, ………………………….. … The Jury, and ………………………….. … Markets in everything. 5. Via Violentia: …. The Iron Rule. Might Makes Right. Both of these texts are worth a read when you get a chance. – Luke Weinhagen
-
Scale and The Store of Trust
Oct 15, 2019, 2:22 PM Jonathan Haidt on his book The Coddling of the American Mind standard.co.uk https://standard.co.uk/lifestyle/books/jonathan-haidt-the-coddling-of-the-american-mind-a4261081.html? SCALE AND THE STORE OF TRUST by Luke Weinhagen ( CD: I’m Sharing because of this bit of genius:
—“The system can not scale beyond its ability to generate and store trust and begins to fail immediately when the extraction of stored trust exceeds the production of trust. That store can act as a buffer during a period of backsliding (and can enable a lot of really destructive behavior in the guise of “tolerance”), but it will not save us.”— Luke Weinhagen
) === COMPLETE POST ===
—-“We came out of a century that had some of the worst horrors in history but which made extraordinary progress on almost every conceivable front in the decades afterwards, and now we’re backsliding.” — Jon Haidt
Putting this in the context I’ve been building over the last couple weeks, the “progress” Haidt is describing (from my perspective) are the mechanisms we developed to foster the development of trust that became possible through the shared exposure to those horrors. I agree with both Haidt and Doolittle in that the outcome of this backsliding in inevitable should it continue. The lesson will impose itself. Whether we learn from it, kindly or not, is another matter. Looking at Curt’s response in the same context I’ve been using –
“…conspicuous consumption of compromises between genes, gender, class, and interests” = extraction of trust. “…cooperative necessity in social orders…” = mechanisms for the production of trust
The system can not scale beyond its ability to generate and store trust and begins to fail immediately when the extraction of stored trust exceeds the production of trust. That store can act as a buffer during a period of backsliding (and can enable a lot of really destructive behavior in the guise of “tolerance”), but it will not save us. “Domestication” is the process of transcendence from each of the lower foundational rules of human interaction to the next higher form of interaction/expansion of the capacity to store trust. THE FOUNDATIONS 1. Via Positiva: ……. The Golden Rule. 2. Via Negativa: ….. The Silver Rule. 3. Via Logica: ……….The Natural Law of Reciprocity. 4. Via Existentia: …. Rule of Law, ………………………….. … The Jury, and ………………………….. … Markets in everything. 5. Via Violentia: …. The Iron Rule. Might Makes Right. Both of these texts are worth a read when you get a chance. – Luke Weinhagen
-
Loans Against Trust
Loans Against Trust https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/loans-against-trust/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 16:59:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265689007599398917
-
Loans Against Trust
Oct 15, 2019, 6:05 PM by Luke Weinhagen Law and contract can be used to subsidize for the absence of specific trust, such as between strangers or untested business partners. Both are “loans” against the stored trust in a polity. Enforced and insured by the commons in the form of “WE as a common polity will impose a cost on any party that breaches law or contract”. Law and contract only provide incentives for adherence where you can expect positive reciprocity (trust producing – rule of law) or where you can rely on the enforcement mechanisms to compel adherence (trust consuming – rule by law). Trust consumption eventually gets us back to “Might makes Right” and brings us back to the question “Why don’t I kill you and take your stuff?” (we descend the foundational rule stack). If trust is not there in some form, no one follow the law or sticks to contracts.
-
Loans Against Trust
Oct 15, 2019, 6:05 PM by Luke Weinhagen Law and contract can be used to subsidize for the absence of specific trust, such as between strangers or untested business partners. Both are “loans” against the stored trust in a polity. Enforced and insured by the commons in the form of “WE as a common polity will impose a cost on any party that breaches law or contract”. Law and contract only provide incentives for adherence where you can expect positive reciprocity (trust producing – rule of law) or where you can rely on the enforcement mechanisms to compel adherence (trust consuming – rule by law). Trust consumption eventually gets us back to “Might makes Right” and brings us back to the question “Why don’t I kill you and take your stuff?” (we descend the foundational rule stack). If trust is not there in some form, no one follow the law or sticks to contracts.
-
FB Future
Oct 17, 2019, 8:02 AM Breaking up FB is not as important to me as regulating it. But if we were to break it up I would recommend breaking up publisher(content and advertising) and platform organizations, and remove Mark from the platform. And then open up the platform to other publishers. This preserves the income for the shareholders but eliminates the interference by the publisher (content control). I would do the same for google. Both of which are now infrastructure, and communication and business necessities – particularly for small international businesses.
-
FB Future
Oct 17, 2019, 8:02 AM Breaking up FB is not as important to me as regulating it. But if we were to break it up I would recommend breaking up publisher(content and advertising) and platform organizations, and remove Mark from the platform. And then open up the platform to other publishers. This preserves the income for the shareholders but eliminates the interference by the publisher (content control). I would do the same for google. Both of which are now infrastructure, and communication and business necessities – particularly for small international businesses.