Theme: Reciprocity

  • SOME USEFUL TERMS IN NEGOTIATING DEALS 1 – Seek To Understand 2 – Seek Reciproci

    SOME USEFUL TERMS IN NEGOTIATING DEALS
    1 – Seek To Understand
    2 – Seek Reciprocity
    3 – Avoid Negative Externalites
    4 – Speak with Truth Before Face
    5 – Act in Good Faith
    6 – Act with Transparency
    7 – Maintain Hands Clean
    8 – Keep Your Word No Matter the Cost
    9 – Don’t Take it Personally and Demonstrate Christian Tolerance and Forgiveness
    10 – Exhaust the Opportunity Before Abandoning it

    Or;
    11 – Otherwise relentless prosecution regardless of cost over longest possible period of time and get in front of a jury. This combination produces the optimum reputation.

    Meaning;
    13 – Holding the moral high ground is not only the best ‘offense’ but the best ‘defense’.

    Do law schools teach this? Does anyone? 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2023-11-09 13:13:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1722603369858998272

  • It’s sort of there. But I think it’s missing the main point, that we don’t tell

    It’s sort of there. But I think it’s missing the main point, that we don’t tell people what they must do other than defend one another’s interests – we only tell them what they may not do – such that anything that is not bad (criminal, unethical, immoral) is either neutral or good, and as such all of evolutionary computation of opportunities in reality remains open for investication innovation and siezure.

    So instead of telling a computer what to do (via positiva) we use the same form of grammar and logic to tell people what they must not do (via negativa).

    WHy? Machines aren’t embodied and experiencing the real world through the sme measurs as humans are, and as such they don’t have all the constant ideas that h umans do or the instincts that humans do. So they need positiva programming.

    Conversely humans only need via-negativa RULES of what not to do (limts, boundaries)

    Reply addressees: @Josh_Ebner


    Source date (UTC): 2023-11-08 21:41:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1722368884081098752

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1722367229033881739

  • I consider Aarvoll a good man, a good family man, a good christian, a non-trivia

    I consider Aarvoll a good man, a good family man, a good christian, a non-trivial thinker, a man of moral ambitions – and a friend, even if that friendship isn’t fully reciprocated. I will not disparage him for his criticism – even if he disagrees with me or holds views and ideas I think are lacking in substance.

    We all see the world through a lens of our own ability, agency, risk, and fear. I see the world through a lens of greater possibility than others – because I have more ability, knowledge, and experience with more variation at more scale than others.

    I don’t need moral men to approve of or agree with me or my ideas, strategies, and plans. The fact that they are moral men is enough for me to love and appreciate them as they are.

    And that is all any of us need if we are, ourselves, moral men as well.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @97NW1 @aldafa_ir @Aarvoll_ @RealChrisLangan


    Source date (UTC): 2023-11-07 20:25:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1721987273070202880

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1721983036563018060

  • yep. But then the obligation of families not to use the concentration of wealth

    yep. But then the obligation of families not to use the concentration of wealth to undermine markets, concurrency, commonality, and due process under the natural law, and it’s constitution is implemented as well. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2023-11-06 16:23:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1721564003653017843

    Reply addressees: @Lord__Sousa

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1721559773055778885

  • Well capitalism is a slur. If you have rule of law of natural law then the only

    Well capitalism is a slur. If you have rule of law of natural law then the only possible behavior is market behavior. If you have capitalism as an ideology it evades those limits. If you are a leftist (liar) you call it capitalism as if it’s an ideology rather than rule of law as…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-11-06 16:13:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1721561571439018071

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1721423272641020340

  • It’s not complicaed: Every possible means of ‘baiting into hazard’, including ga

    It’s not complicaed: Every possible means of ‘baiting into hazard’, including gambling, sex, and alcohol on credit, ‘allying with the state against the people”, tax collection, and slaving. The reason they were prohibited land is because they would issue ururious loans (+30%), and then seize the property. So it wasn’t just that they specialized in financialism, but that they used financialism to profit from baiting into hazard instead of profit from the facilitation of production. Worse, they sponsored immorality in every way possible.
    This is why fiat money was such an advantage but the failure of our governments to immitation the french, and sieze the ill-gotten gains, and loan from the treasury to prevent such abuse of the people.
    Do you think that’s not still occurring today?

    Reply addressees: @tim47386 @whatifalthist


    Source date (UTC): 2023-11-05 20:19:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1721261043878363137

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1721259075957088269

  • DISAMBIGUATION: COOPERATION (from the archives) DEFINITION Cooperation consists

    DISAMBIGUATION: COOPERATION
    (from the archives)

    DEFINITION
    Cooperation consists of increases in the production of returns on time by the discovery of a coincidence of wants, and agreement on mutual pursuit of the same ends (rewards), in a division of labor, given the non linear increases in returns (extraordinary) made possible by that division of labor, that is preferable by the parties to alternative uses of their time.

    The Evolution of Cooperation:
    1) Acquisitiveness: To survive and reproduce, humans must acquire and inventory many categories of resources, and evolved to demonstrate constant acquisitiveness of those resources.

    2) Demonstgrated Interests(“property”): The scope of those things they act upon, or choose not to act upon, in anticipation of obtaining as inventory (a store of value), constitute their demonstrated definition of property-en-toto.* (See Butler Schaeffer) “That which and organism defends.”

    3) Value: Human emotions evolved to reflect changes in state of demonstrated interests. As such nearly all emotions can be expressed in terms of reactions to property. (imposed costs here, pre-moral, but also pre-cooperation, and only defense and retaliation, not cooperation)

    4) Non-Conflict: That which humans act to obtain without imposition upon in-group members they evolved to intuit as their demonstrated interests (property), and demonstrate this intuition by defense of their inventory, and by their punishment of transgressors.

    5) Cooperative Production: That which humans act in concert with one another to produce a change in state that is prefereable to other potential changes in state at some point in time.

    6) Moral (cooperative) Intuitions(instincts): Moral intuitions reflect prohibitions on free riding by members with whom one cooperates in production and reproduction. (This is where free riding enters.)

    7) Distribution of Intuitions by Reproductive Strategy: Moral intuitions vary in intensity to suit one’s reproductive strategy. This intensity and distribution of moral intuition varies between males and females, as well as between classes and between groups.

    8) Variation By Family Structure: Moral rules reflect prohibitions on free riding given the structure of the family in relation to the necessary and available structure of production.

    9) Resolution of Disputes: Property rights were developed in law as the positive enumeration in contractual form, of those moral rules which any polity (corporation) agrees to enforce with the promise of violence for the purpose of restitution or punishment. Conversely, any possible property rights not expressed, the community (corporation) is unwilling to adjudicate, restore or punish, or has not yet discovered the need to construct.

    10) Instrumentation: Property rights are necessary for the instrumental measurement of moral prohibitions because of the unobservability of changes in human emotional states, and our inability to determine truth from falsehood. And as such we require an observable proxy for evidence of changes in state.

    11) Family: As a general rule, as the division of knowledge and labor increases, so must the atomicity of property rights, and as a consequence, the size of the family must decline {Consanguineous, Punaluan, Pairing (Serial Marriage), Hetaeristic, Traditional, Stem, Nuclear, Absolute Nuclear}.

    12) Transaction Costs: As the division of labor increases, relationships increase in distance from kin, increase in anonymity, decrease common interest, and the incentive to seize opportunities rather than adhere to agreements increases. This decrease creates the problem of trust, which increases costs of insuring any agreement is fulfilled, and decreases the overall number of possible agreements and the number of participants in any structure of production.

    13) Trust (ethics in production): As a general rule, for the size of the family to decrease, and division of labor to increase in multi-part complexity then trust must increase, and trust can only increase with expansion of property rights to include prohibitions on unethical actions. Mere ostracization, boycotting and reputation are insufficient to preserve agreements (contracts).

    14) Moral Competition (ethics in political production): (morals property rights, cheating) As a general rule, the scope of moral prohibitions expressed as property rights, must increase to limit demand for authority.

    15) Demand for Authority: As a general rule, if a delay in the production of property rights evolves, then demand for authority will fill the vacuum with some form of authority to either suppress retaliation (conflict) or to prevent circumstances leading to conflict, or both.

    THE REASONS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF COOPERATION

    INGROUP COOPERATION
    1) The disproportionately high return on cooperation.
    2) The differences in abilities at different ages.
    3) The difference in reproductive role and strategy between the genders.
    4) The differences in abilities among men.
    5) The local structure of production: the division of knowledge and labor.
    6) The local structure of the reproduction: family and inheritance rights.
    7) The distribution of property rights between the individual, family, group and the commons.
    8) The degree of suppression of, and intolerance for, free riding both in and out of family.
    9) calculative, cooperative technology available for economic signaling and coordination. (objective truth, numbers, money, prices, interest, writing, contract, and accounting).
    10) The use of formal institutions to perpetuate these constraints.
    11) The competition from groups with alternate structures of production, family, inheritance, property rights, free riding, cooperative technologies, and formal institutions.

    OUTGROUP COOPERATION
    12) The geographical distribution of nature-given factors of production. (note that this is last.)

    PROPERTY RIGHT
    OBVERSE: A prohibition on the imposition of costs against those categories of property that in-group members are willing to enforce by means of organized violence.
    REVERSE: a warranty by peers (right) that they will either enforce restitution for impositions of costs upon certain categories of your property, and/or that they will not retaliate against you for your acts of retaliation or restitution for such impositions.

    RESULT?
    (i) PROPERTY: that which we demonstrate that we have born costs to acquire without imposing costs upon others with whom we cooperate.
    (ii) COOPERATION: constructing an asymmetry of incentives such that we choose to concentrate efforts by dividing labor in order to obtain the disproportionate rewards of doing so versus the alternatives.
    (iii) MORALITY: that which we require in order to rationally cooperate.
    (iv) RIGHT: Sanction of retaliation in case of abridgment. OBLIGATION: Requirement of performance.
    (v) LAW (PROPERTY RIGHT): that which we promise to one another to insure.
    —END OF ANALYSIS–


    Source date (UTC): 2023-11-04 17:09:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720850845363834880

  • If liberty, freedom, truth, reciprocity, concurrency and commonality are a dange

    If liberty, freedom, truth, reciprocity, concurrency and commonality are a danger – then it’s only a danger to the criminal. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2023-11-03 02:50:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720272278762537005

    Reply addressees: @RandallKeough @ask_aubry

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720269676167536693

  • When truth reciprocity and self determination are a threat it can only mean one

    When truth reciprocity and self determination are a threat it can only mean one thing: those threatened are criminals at best, seditious, treasonous, or pure evil otherwise. That said we must accept that most of the electorate only believes they think. Instead, the feel emotions or intuitions and search for justification of them by whatever set of words they can recall.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-11-02 19:59:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720168899365216256

  • Oops. Forgot the main point. 😉 Law as in natural law of reciprocity – contractu

    Oops. Forgot the main point. 😉
    Law as in natural law of reciprocity – contractualism.
    Not ‘rules’ or ‘commands’ from an authority.
    Europe retained trifunctionalism. Because it can with law first. China with state-first developed philosophy instead of religion, but failed at law for reasons I’ve explained elsewehre and why Confucius, failing at politics, failing at law, directed civilization to the family and hierarchy of families and harmony. Where law creates adversarial competition for the benefit of the commons seeking utililty at the cost of disruption. Harmony does not tolerate ‘distruption’. The middle east CONFLATED Religion, law and state. And failed at all three.

    Reply addressees: @matthewolivan @whatifalthist


    Source date (UTC): 2023-11-01 16:11:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719748980320481280

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719748174955286632


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    No. The Jewish emphasis on scriptural law was a counter-reaction to greco-roman law oncde t hey saw the effect of it. So they resurrected pre-500bc remnants and adopted the use of the law themselves. You will find almost all semitic behavior after the bronze age collapse, is just reaction to the superiority of the social, political, military, and technological advantages of indo europeans whether iranic, anatolian, or european.

    Likewise islam is largely the result of a counter-reaction against the Nicean effort to standardize the bible as law, with a law that was intolerable for the arabs and their tribalism. Before nicea christianity was ascendent in the orient.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1719748174955286632