Morality by Continuous Recursive Disambiguation and Expansion https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/29/morality-by-continuous-recursive-disambiguation-and-expansion/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-29 20:58:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266474029344571392
Mar 4, 2020, 2:49 PM MORALITY BY CONTINUOUS RECURSIVE DISAMBIGUATION AND EXPANSION (example) (core)
a) Morality = Theology and Philosophy b) Ethics = Philosophy and Law c) Reciprocity= Law and ScienceEXPANSION:
Reciprocity.
Reciprocity within the limits of proportionality (defection).
Reciprocity against property-in-toto within the limits of proportionality.
Reciprocity in display word and deed, against property-in-toto, within the limits of proportionality.
Reciprocity in display word and deed by productive, fully informed(truthful), voluntary transfer(exchange), of demonstrated interests as described by property in toto, free of imposition of against the demonstrated interests of others, within the limits of restitution, within limits of possible due diligence, and warrantied within the limits of liability.
Reciprocity in display word and deed by due diligence against error bias and deceit, by tests of realism, naturalism and categorical, internal, operational, external consistency, rational choice, including full accounting, within stated limits; and of productive, voluntary transfer(exchange), of demonstrated interests, as described by property in toto, free of imposition of against the demonstrated interests of others, within the limits of restitution, within limits of possible due diligence, and warrantied within the limits of liability.
Reciprocity of display word and deed by due diligence against error bias and deceit, by tests of realism, naturalism and categorical, internal, operational, external consistency, rational choice, including full accounting, within stated limits; and of productive, voluntary transfer(exchange), of demonstrated interests as whether personal, several, or common; free of imposition of against the demonstrated interests of others, within the limits of restitution, within limits of possible due diligence, and warrantied within the limits of liability.
Reciprocity consisting in bi-directional voluntary transfer, by display, word, and deed, of due diligence against error bias and deceit, using tests of realism, naturalism and categorical, internal, operational, external consistency, rational choice, including full accounting, within stated limits; of productive, voluntary, demonstrated interests – whether personal, several, or common; free of imposition of against the demonstrated interests of others, within the limits of restitution, within limits of possible due diligence, and warrantied within the limits of liability.
Mar 4, 2020, 2:49 PM MORALITY BY CONTINUOUS RECURSIVE DISAMBIGUATION AND EXPANSION (example) (core)
a) Morality = Theology and Philosophy b) Ethics = Philosophy and Law c) Reciprocity= Law and ScienceEXPANSION:
Reciprocity.
Reciprocity within the limits of proportionality (defection).
Reciprocity against property-in-toto within the limits of proportionality.
Reciprocity in display word and deed, against property-in-toto, within the limits of proportionality.
Reciprocity in display word and deed by productive, fully informed(truthful), voluntary transfer(exchange), of demonstrated interests as described by property in toto, free of imposition of against the demonstrated interests of others, within the limits of restitution, within limits of possible due diligence, and warrantied within the limits of liability.
Reciprocity in display word and deed by due diligence against error bias and deceit, by tests of realism, naturalism and categorical, internal, operational, external consistency, rational choice, including full accounting, within stated limits; and of productive, voluntary transfer(exchange), of demonstrated interests, as described by property in toto, free of imposition of against the demonstrated interests of others, within the limits of restitution, within limits of possible due diligence, and warrantied within the limits of liability.
Reciprocity of display word and deed by due diligence against error bias and deceit, by tests of realism, naturalism and categorical, internal, operational, external consistency, rational choice, including full accounting, within stated limits; and of productive, voluntary transfer(exchange), of demonstrated interests as whether personal, several, or common; free of imposition of against the demonstrated interests of others, within the limits of restitution, within limits of possible due diligence, and warrantied within the limits of liability.
Reciprocity consisting in bi-directional voluntary transfer, by display, word, and deed, of due diligence against error bias and deceit, using tests of realism, naturalism and categorical, internal, operational, external consistency, rational choice, including full accounting, within stated limits; of productive, voluntary, demonstrated interests – whether personal, several, or common; free of imposition of against the demonstrated interests of others, within the limits of restitution, within limits of possible due diligence, and warrantied within the limits of liability.
Q: The propertarian view on lending with interest? https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/29/q-the-propertarian-view-on-lending-with-interest/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-29 20:37:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266468783830466565
Mar 5, 2020, 5:19 PM CIVILIZED LIKE VELOCITY IS A THRESHOLD AND SPECTRUM NOT A STATE
—“Curt, how do we consider the Chinese a civilized nation when they do not engage in reciprocity with anyone, and they hack the whole world with false promises and sh—y, toxic goods?”— Ahmed Reda
Civilized means ‘urbanized’, meaning ‘markets’, with ‘market ethics’, which we think of as middle class or ‘civilized’ ethics, combined with producing high culture (arts) as monuments (achievements), the ultimate luxury. Chinese civilization has been ‘advanced’ in the sense of (a) urbanized, and (b) producing high culture, since the ancient world. However, Chinese culture has never valued human life as we do in all of its history and the communists made it far worse. A quick perusal of the history of chinese art compared to european will illustrate the self loathing of the chinese toward human beings. A quick read of how many of their own people they have killed in modern, medieval, and ancient worlds, tells the rest. They are a low trust society still trying to emerge out of endemic poverty. We think they are an old people and they claim to be but they are not. The communists did to china what the (((current leftists))) are trying to do to ours, so the chinese lost all their high culture and traditions and ethics and suffered through the communist experience. Their priority in value is harmony over human life. Why this is the case is rather obvious if you understand their history.
Mar 5, 2020, 5:19 PM CIVILIZED LIKE VELOCITY IS A THRESHOLD AND SPECTRUM NOT A STATE
—“Curt, how do we consider the Chinese a civilized nation when they do not engage in reciprocity with anyone, and they hack the whole world with false promises and sh—y, toxic goods?”— Ahmed Reda
Civilized means ‘urbanized’, meaning ‘markets’, with ‘market ethics’, which we think of as middle class or ‘civilized’ ethics, combined with producing high culture (arts) as monuments (achievements), the ultimate luxury. Chinese civilization has been ‘advanced’ in the sense of (a) urbanized, and (b) producing high culture, since the ancient world. However, Chinese culture has never valued human life as we do in all of its history and the communists made it far worse. A quick perusal of the history of chinese art compared to european will illustrate the self loathing of the chinese toward human beings. A quick read of how many of their own people they have killed in modern, medieval, and ancient worlds, tells the rest. They are a low trust society still trying to emerge out of endemic poverty. We think they are an old people and they claim to be but they are not. The communists did to china what the (((current leftists))) are trying to do to ours, so the chinese lost all their high culture and traditions and ethics and suffered through the communist experience. Their priority in value is harmony over human life. Why this is the case is rather obvious if you understand their history.
Mar 7, 2020, 5:35 PM
—” I’m curious how P-law would handle the harmful nature drugs involve, without stamping on freedom of the individual to grow and learn from making mistakes… and what about drugs that stradle a line between medical necessity, and potential for abuse like opioids or amphetamine. … And the third aspect of the question would be: what about drugs like psychedelics, that might hold great value for both therapeutics and also potential for cognitive and spiritual enhancement without much risk to physical health? ….How would a propertarian society manage these risks and issues with adult maturity and intelligence, while avoiding descending into the unproductive chaos like we have in the current drug laws? Just curious if an answer to these questions has yet been formulated…”— NJ Gregory
If it’s not in the commons it’s not a problem OF the commons.If it becomes a problem of the commons then it’s a problem of the commons. Drug use itself is a commons (common property of demonstrated interest) for those who use drugs. If users constrain each other such that the users’ commons doesn’t influence the broader commons then that’s not a problem. If not then it is. In other words, it’s up to the ‘market’ to control its effect on the commons or to lose their commons for having not done so. This is the answer to almost every seemingly difficult question. The problem is the unwillingness of members of risky commons to police their property. That’s why drugs are outlawed. Because they remove the agency of the user, and produce malincentives for the distributor. This is another way of saying all groups in which one has an interest and obtains a value also transfers to one a liability for the group one sustains. Ergo: collective punishment exists, we just don’t speak of it honestly. If we did, then we would cause say, certain religions to control their members or lose the entire religion and all members.
Mar 7, 2020, 5:35 PM
—” I’m curious how P-law would handle the harmful nature drugs involve, without stamping on freedom of the individual to grow and learn from making mistakes… and what about drugs that stradle a line between medical necessity, and potential for abuse like opioids or amphetamine. … And the third aspect of the question would be: what about drugs like psychedelics, that might hold great value for both therapeutics and also potential for cognitive and spiritual enhancement without much risk to physical health? ….How would a propertarian society manage these risks and issues with adult maturity and intelligence, while avoiding descending into the unproductive chaos like we have in the current drug laws? Just curious if an answer to these questions has yet been formulated…”— NJ Gregory
If it’s not in the commons it’s not a problem OF the commons.If it becomes a problem of the commons then it’s a problem of the commons. Drug use itself is a commons (common property of demonstrated interest) for those who use drugs. If users constrain each other such that the users’ commons doesn’t influence the broader commons then that’s not a problem. If not then it is. In other words, it’s up to the ‘market’ to control its effect on the commons or to lose their commons for having not done so. This is the answer to almost every seemingly difficult question. The problem is the unwillingness of members of risky commons to police their property. That’s why drugs are outlawed. Because they remove the agency of the user, and produce malincentives for the distributor. This is another way of saying all groups in which one has an interest and obtains a value also transfers to one a liability for the group one sustains. Ergo: collective punishment exists, we just don’t speak of it honestly. If we did, then we would cause say, certain religions to control their members or lose the entire religion and all members.
Two (2) big causes of conflict: … 1) personality clusters… 2) group strategy Creating two broad categories of excuses to violate reciprocity with parasitism, and to lie about equality, and make supernatural claims. (CD: John. Smart. Great positioning. wow.)
Two (2) big causes of conflict: … 1) personality clusters… 2) group strategy Creating two broad categories of excuses to violate reciprocity with parasitism, and to lie about equality, and make supernatural claims. (CD: John. Smart. Great positioning. wow.)