Theme: Reciprocity

  • But it assumes we’re cooperating. Cooperation means non aggression (the via nega

    But it assumes we’re cooperating.
    Cooperation means non aggression (the via negativa) it means the via positiva of cooperation is still a choice – or it isn’t cooperation.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-29 17:06:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1873415316648431845

    Reply addressees: @CloudByter @Anarchrist5 @BuzzPatterson @elonmusk @X

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1873413685215113377

  • Binding? No. But like many things that we state as a positive, the origin is a n

    Binding? No. But like many things that we state as a positive, the origin is a negative: self defense. The public is less likely to hang you or worse if you demonstrate paternal consideration and care.
    The same is true for the Chivalric codes which were originated by the church to domesticate the knights who were largely … awful people. But it eventually did take hold.

    The concept of noblesse oblige—the idea that privilege and power come with social responsibilities—has been treated variably by historic aristocracies. While there is evidence that certain aristocratic societies incorporated notions of obligation to the community, the extent to which this was taken seriously or practiced consistently is subject to debate. Here’s an analysis of evidence for and against the binding nature of noblesse oblige:

    Evidence FOR Noblesse Oblige as Binding

    Feudal Contracts and Reciprocal Obligations:
    Feudalism in medieval Europe formalized reciprocal relationships between lords and vassals.Lords provided protection, justice, and sustenance.
    In return, vassals owed military service and loyalty.
    These obligations, though hierarchical, were codified and treated as binding within the feudal system.

    Aristocratic Patronage:
    Aristocrats often supported their communities through patronage, funding public works, churches, and artistic endeavors. Example: Renaissance Italy, where families like the Medici funded art and architecture for civic pride and legacy.
    In England, wealthy landowners frequently built schools, almshouses, and hospitals for their tenants.

    Chivalric Codes: Chivalry imposed moral obligations on knights and nobles, emphasizing virtues like protection of the weak, justice, and honor.
    Texts like The Song of Roland and Le Morte d’Arthur depict these ideals as integral to aristocratic identity.

    Social and Cultural Expectations:
    Aristocracies often justified their privilege by claiming stewardship of the lower classes. Example: The Great Chain of Being in Europe framed nobles as divinely appointed caretakers of society.
    The Roman concept of paterfamilias extended to political leaders, who were expected to act as “fathers” to their communities.

    Revolutionary Backlashes Against Failure:
    When nobles failed to fulfill their perceived obligations, they faced severe consequences, suggesting these expectations were seen as binding.Example: The French Revolution was partly driven by aristocratic neglect of peasant welfare during economic crises.

    Examples of Individual Noblesse Oblige: Historical figures like Marcus Aurelius, Elizabeth I, and George Washington embodied leadership tied to duty and responsibility, reinforcing the ideal.

    Evidence AGAINST Noblesse Oblige as Binding

    Selective and Self-Serving Application:
    Many aristocrats treated noblesse oblige as a rhetorical justification for their privilege rather than a consistent obligation. Example: French nobles prior to the Revolution often maintained lavish lifestyles while burdening peasants with taxes.
    Landowners in 19th-century England frequently displaced tenants during the Highland Clearances or enclosure movements.

    Exploitation of Power:
    Feudal systems often prioritized aristocratic interests over the well-being of lower classes. Example: Serfs in Russia endured severe exploitation with little evidence of aristocratic responsibility until the emancipation reforms of 1861.
    Colonial aristocracies often justified conquest and exploitation as “civilizing missions,” demonstrating noblesse oblige applied selectively to certain groups.

    Historical Hypocrisy:
    Despite ideals of chivalry, knights and lords frequently engaged in rapacious behavior, including pillaging, warmongering, and exploitation of their subjects. Example: The Hundred Years’ War saw widespread destruction of peasant communities by both English and French forces.

    Cultural Variability:
    Not all aristocracies adhered to notions of noblesse oblige.Example: In pre-modern China, Confucian philosophy emphasized hierarchical responsibility, but imperial corruption often left local governance to predatory landlords.

    Modern Historical Revisionism:
    The romanticized view of noblesse oblige may owe more to later cultural reinterpretations than to consistent historical practice.Victorian authors like Walter Scott idealized medieval chivalry and aristocratic virtue, possibly exaggerating the role of noblesse oblige.

    Conclusion

    The historical evidence suggests that noblesse oblige was aspirational rather than consistently binding. Aristocratic societies often used the concept to legitimize their power, but its application was uneven and heavily influenced by cultural, economic, and individual factors. While some nobles genuinely embraced their responsibilities, many failed to live up to the ideal, leading to resentment and revolutionary consequences when obligations were ignored.

    Reply addressees: @juniorwolf @moveincircles


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-28 18:11:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1873069324598206464

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1873065516518260919

  • Actually you’re being prohibited from aggression. (that’s the negativa). We just

    Actually you’re being prohibited from aggression. (that’s the negativa). We just state the positiva to be consistent with the rest of moral arguments. Both testimony and reciprocity, sovereignty and self determination are positiva expressions of the negativa against causing people to want to boycott, ostracize, or kill you.

    And you know, I can’t believe I’ve failed this badly to make what I think is obvious understood.

    Reply addressees: @Will_of_Europa @AutistocratMS


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-27 13:24:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1872634745689182208

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1872630877228016126

  • (For example, what happens when one vs one becomes one or more vs one or more in

    (For example, what happens when one vs one becomes one or more vs one or more insuring one another – which is the near universal human condition.)


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-27 00:25:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1872438591286333703

    Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1872433388352590064

  • “enforced cooperation ceases to be cooperation” is it? If the strong suppress th

    “enforced cooperation ceases to be cooperation”
    is it? If the strong suppress the predation and parasitism of the weak, producing reciprocity, then what about that reciprocity is no longer reciprocal? Instead alternatives are no longer reciprocal. Cooperation enforces the recirocal by via negativa preventing the irreciprocal. As such recprocity still exists and may only exist within the constructino of the conditions for it by suppression of irreciprocity.

    Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-27 00:02:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1872432719092994048

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1872430514474197413

  • Really? Start with the five hard questions. Then ask why norms, traditions, laws

    Really? Start with the five hard questions. Then ask why norms, traditions, laws, values, institutions, always develop to enforce reciprocity under some variation given local constraints. Why are ploities, armies, empires created? Why do states and empires domesticate those who are not domesticated, and what is the means of doing it and why? Why is extermination so rare and conquest so nearly universal?

    Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-26 23:58:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1872431765966757888

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1872430514474197413

  • RT @Josh_Ebner: I’ve been wrong about Christ my whole adult life. Here’s why: On

    RT @Josh_Ebner: I’ve been wrong about Christ my whole adult life.

    Here’s why:

    One of the foundations of Indo European strategy is recipro…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-26 03:04:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1872116219861696682

  • I just try to do “true and reciprocal”. I leave fussing about it to people who f

    I just try to do “true and reciprocal”. I leave fussing about it to people who find want of it…. (sigh). My job is scientific and judicial. I don’t have the luxury of sentimental folly.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-25 21:13:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1872028023975010447

    Reply addressees: @SpanishBaptist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1872022164276424725

  • RT @exquofonte: @Hail__To_You @curtdoolittle Islam is immoral (violates reciproc

    RT @exquofonte: @Hail__To_You @curtdoolittle Islam is immoral (violates reciprocity) in a number of ways and should not be tolerated in the…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-23 18:00:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1871254651066360032

  • The Soul is Simple: The soul is an accounting system for the self vs others: rec

    The Soul is Simple: The soul is an accounting system for the self vs others: reciprocity/credit(+) and imposition/debt(-) and the resulting security and mindfulness(+) vs insecurity and fear(-). And that is all it is. And neurologically that’s all it can or need be.

    Humor: Joshua is a proper German – discourse on mind is somehow incomplete without poetry and phenomenalism. We anglos prefer dry scientific and legal prose. 😉
    -Hugs @Plinz 😉

    Reply addressees: @Plinz


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-21 01:53:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1870286321824264192

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1870282794699764033