Theme: Reciprocity

  • I think the demarcation between truth(decidability) and choice (preference) is c

    I think the demarcation between truth(decidability) and choice (preference) is complete.

    Philosophy only tells us choice now, while law (reciprocity), science(consistency correspondence,… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=467274753869420&id=100017606988153


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-17 07:03:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173854983051186177

  • I think the demarcation between truth(decidability) and choice (preference) is c

    I think the demarcation between truth(decidability) and choice (preference) is complete.

    Philosophy only tells us choice now, while law (reciprocity), science(consistency correspondence, and coherence), and mathematics(measurement) provide decidability regardless of choice.

    The top of the pyramid is not philosophy but testimony, law, science, mathematics, and the logic faculty in a consistent coherent ontology. While philosophy (arbitrary ontology) has nothing to say but choice.

    In other words, Law (cooperation) science (evidence) are merely an extension of testimony. Which is why the west developed them. We are the only people that base our law entirely on sovereignty and therefore we have no other choice but testimony, law, science and math for decidability.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-17 03:03:00 UTC

  • “Can anyone elaborate on the baiting into moral hazards via pilpul please? Is th

    —“Can anyone elaborate on the baiting into moral hazards via pilpul please? Is that to use philosophy and morality as an argument as opposed to utility, reciprocity based on empirical?”—… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=467121393884756&id=100017606988153


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 23:55:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173747326244007936

  • Give me an example. Language, like violence can be used for true and reciprocal

    Give me an example. Language, like violence can be used for true and reciprocal or false and irreciprocal ends. It is just a resource. So while I work on eliminating falsehood by law I am not sure what you are working on other than association, which is useless for operations.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 21:10:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173705655414403072

    Reply addressees: @Semiogogue

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173705056358735872


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Semiogogue

    @curtdoolittle I want the marks in our environment to be reliable as a basis for making behavioral determinations. Like they were in the first place. Before *spoken language* introduced the ambiguity. Once upon a time there was no such ambiguity. https://t.co/R9AQUcUXQA

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173705056358735872

  • Correct. Rule of law requires juridical defense, reciprocity, non retroactivity,

    Correct. Rule of law requires juridical defense, reciprocity, non retroactivity, universal application, and universal standing. The state gradually disintermediated the people and the courts. Depriving the people of Juridical Defense – and with Judicial Review, ended Rule of Law.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 20:33:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173696531981099008

    Reply addressees: @pnw_rider @JohnMarkSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173693284658667520


    IN REPLY TO:

    @pnw_rider

    @JohnMarkSays the thing that really concerns me is the lack of justice. We have a set of laws that don’t apply to the government people and elite and another for everyone else Epstein, LV shooting report , Hilary, Learner , FBI, DOJ , Tech, NXIVM etc https://t.co/ncT4NwidBO

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173693284658667520

  • “Can anyone elaborate on the baiting into moral hazards via pilpul please? Is th

    —“Can anyone elaborate on the baiting into moral hazards via pilpul please? Is that to use philosophy and morality as an argument as opposed to utility, reciprocity based on empirical?”—

    0) A woman implies access to friendship, affection, or sex, which she will never deliver.

    1) I promise you life after death if you obey and undermine the upper classes. (abrahamism)

    2) I promise you power and equality if you undermine the political system (marx)

    3) I promise you equality if you undermine men (feminism)

    4) I promise you status if you undermine the status hierarchy (postmodernism)

    5) I lend you money at usurious prices that will entrap you.

    6) I lend you money or extend you credit to gamble.

    7) I lend you money or extend you credit to buy alcohol or drugs.

    8) I appeal to your morality and pass the hart cellar immigration act.

    How long do you want this list to go on? Because those are just the easy ones.

    These are all lies that bait you into hazard (risk and loss).


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 19:55:00 UTC

  • This is why the declaration, constitution, and bill of rights are an adequate at

    This is why the declaration, constitution, and bill of rights are an adequate attempt to restate norman,anglo-saxon, germanic traditional law as natural law, expressed in specific rights. But lacking strict construction from the foundations of that law, the constitution was weak.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 14:36:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173606594199924736

    Reply addressees: @GrkStav @karlbykarlsmith

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173605728369762305


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @GrkStav @karlbykarlsmith Useful idiots constitute the vast majority of the population (I know, I have iffy followers too.) For whom the portfolio of sentiments need be satisfied, not the central object of stated policy. Humans account for calories(consumption), and status(opportunity) almost exclusively.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173605728369762305


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @GrkStav @karlbykarlsmith Useful idiots constitute the vast majority of the population (I know, I have iffy followers too.) For whom the portfolio of sentiments need be satisfied, not the central object of stated policy. Humans account for calories(consumption), and status(opportunity) almost exclusively.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173605728369762305

  • They can’t stand the reason why either: Truth regardless of the consequence to t

    They can’t stand the reason why either: Truth regardless of the consequence to the dominance hierarchy; sovereignty and reciprocity in law (tort, trespass) before a jury of peers (impossibility of corruption); and markets (competition) in all walks of life; = optimum velocity.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-15 19:57:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173324951782330368

    Reply addressees: @JayMan471

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173310634504704001


    IN REPLY TO:

    @JayMan471

    Boy https://t.co/ejwfwxS50V

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173310634504704001

  • Notes for John Mark Interview – Part 3

    So what we see is that it’s not capitalism vs socialism, it’s reciprocity vs parasitism. Law’s job is to suppress all forms of parasitism and thus enforce natural law of reciprocity. In my other vids on Propertarianism I’ve explained the basics of how we can write/design our rule of law to do that better than we do today. But Why is it that enforcing reciprocity (eliminating parasitism) produces wealth and high quality of life?

    It’s Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Non Parasitism, Rule of Law, suppression of demand for authority. (PACK) VS Equality, Proportionality, Parasitism, Rule by Discretion, Demand for authority.(HERD) So yes, the capitalism vs socialism is a false dichotomy that is perhaps the best persistent example of using pilpul and critique to present a straw man argument when all economies must be mixed because defense of the private for the purpose of consumption and the common for the purpose of preservation are two very different things requiring two different kinds of enforcement. We must have markets for association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, elites and their strategies, and polities. Because markets calculate the unknown. Its only backward organizations that can use authority for short periods to adapt (transform) to a new technology using a novel set of incentives. This is the value of executive and states: to reorganize incentives that have calcified. Answering the WHY IS IT…? Question is just (a) we make time through divisions of labor (b) we make more time the faster we identify and capture opportunities. (c.) for increasingly complex goods, services, and information, we produce longer more complex production cycles with more opportunities along the chain, in to more and more organizations in sustainable networks of specialization and trade. We are calculating a way of defeating the dark forces of time and ignorance in a window of opportunity between catastrophic events on a plant that has had a set of what I suspect are rare coincidences. Western man uses maneuver – ooda loops- to move faster than others. That’s it. And law, and markets in all aspects of life favor evolution, eugenics, and prosperity as a method of competitive advantage. And the weak spot in our civilization is that (a) until now it wasn’t codified in a sort of bible of the law, and (b) our women and some portion of our men will always be vulnerable to false promises that evolution and the red queen can be ignored rather than defeated.

  • Notes for John Mark Interview – Part 3

    So what we see is that it’s not capitalism vs socialism, it’s reciprocity vs parasitism. Law’s job is to suppress all forms of parasitism and thus enforce natural law of reciprocity. In my other vids on Propertarianism I’ve explained the basics of how we can write/design our rule of law to do that better than we do today. But Why is it that enforcing reciprocity (eliminating parasitism) produces wealth and high quality of life?

    It’s Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Non Parasitism, Rule of Law, suppression of demand for authority. (PACK) VS Equality, Proportionality, Parasitism, Rule by Discretion, Demand for authority.(HERD) So yes, the capitalism vs socialism is a false dichotomy that is perhaps the best persistent example of using pilpul and critique to present a straw man argument when all economies must be mixed because defense of the private for the purpose of consumption and the common for the purpose of preservation are two very different things requiring two different kinds of enforcement. We must have markets for association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, elites and their strategies, and polities. Because markets calculate the unknown. Its only backward organizations that can use authority for short periods to adapt (transform) to a new technology using a novel set of incentives. This is the value of executive and states: to reorganize incentives that have calcified. Answering the WHY IS IT…? Question is just (a) we make time through divisions of labor (b) we make more time the faster we identify and capture opportunities. (c.) for increasingly complex goods, services, and information, we produce longer more complex production cycles with more opportunities along the chain, in to more and more organizations in sustainable networks of specialization and trade. We are calculating a way of defeating the dark forces of time and ignorance in a window of opportunity between catastrophic events on a plant that has had a set of what I suspect are rare coincidences. Western man uses maneuver – ooda loops- to move faster than others. That’s it. And law, and markets in all aspects of life favor evolution, eugenics, and prosperity as a method of competitive advantage. And the weak spot in our civilization is that (a) until now it wasn’t codified in a sort of bible of the law, and (b) our women and some portion of our men will always be vulnerable to false promises that evolution and the red queen can be ignored rather than defeated.