Theme: Reciprocity

  • Explaining Reciprocity to A Newb

    October 25th, 2018 8:27 AM EXPLAINING RECIPROCITY TO A NEWB

    —“…If I see someone being raped, but do nothing to help….”—

    [T]hen by law, “You failed to remove the bad”. Incremental Suppression: the discovery and canonization of ‘bads’ (violations of reciprocity) by use of the one law of reciprocity (tort), the jury, and an independent professional judiciary, provides the most rapid means possible of continuous incremental suppressions of free riding, parasitism, and predation The Natural Law of Reciprocity: the demand for Productive, Fully Informed, Warrantied, Voluntary Transfer of Demonstrated Interests (property), Free of Imposition of Costs upon the Demonstrated Interests (property) of others by externality. Remove the bad: Every man a warrior, sheriff, juror, legislator of the one natural law of reciprocity. |WESTERN CIVILIZATION| Transcendence (Evolutionary Velocity) via Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth and Duty, The judiciary of the natural law, and the consequential markets in everything. Where there the militia constitutions a private partnership and there is no state to perform the function of insurer of last resort, every man demonstrates reciprocity by performing the function of insurer of last resort. —“You’re conflating “good””— Anything that is not bad is good. Bads can be known. The preferential, the good (reciprocal preferential), are preferences. Whether they are preference or good is an opinion. Whether they are ‘bad’ and a violation of reciprocity is not an opinion. It is a fact (by Logical Necessity). —“Sacrifices”– No animal, including humans, demonstrates altruism, only kin selection, option buying, status acquisition (opportunity gain and discount), and reciprocity (debt) payment against status loss (and therefore opportunity loss). We cast this self interest as virtuous in order to acquire more of such behavior by grant of status to heroic display. —“…being good…”— Man is, by all evidence, amoral – preying upon or cooperating with as suits his self interest. Given a long time frame, it is in one’s self interest to cooperate because of the outsized returns on cooperation versus predation and boycott. One is ‘virtuous’ because all ‘virtues’ decrease the opportunity costs of cooperation and provide discounts on those higher returns. The fact that we attribute status (pay for with opportunity discounts [trust, recommendation, referrals], is merely compensation (investment) in the production of reciprocity by those with most evidence of it. QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM I don’t make mistakes. It’s my job. 😉 lol

  • Explaining Reciprocity to A Newb

    October 25th, 2018 8:27 AM EXPLAINING RECIPROCITY TO A NEWB

    —“…If I see someone being raped, but do nothing to help….”—

    [T]hen by law, “You failed to remove the bad”. Incremental Suppression: the discovery and canonization of ‘bads’ (violations of reciprocity) by use of the one law of reciprocity (tort), the jury, and an independent professional judiciary, provides the most rapid means possible of continuous incremental suppressions of free riding, parasitism, and predation The Natural Law of Reciprocity: the demand for Productive, Fully Informed, Warrantied, Voluntary Transfer of Demonstrated Interests (property), Free of Imposition of Costs upon the Demonstrated Interests (property) of others by externality. Remove the bad: Every man a warrior, sheriff, juror, legislator of the one natural law of reciprocity. |WESTERN CIVILIZATION| Transcendence (Evolutionary Velocity) via Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth and Duty, The judiciary of the natural law, and the consequential markets in everything. Where there the militia constitutions a private partnership and there is no state to perform the function of insurer of last resort, every man demonstrates reciprocity by performing the function of insurer of last resort. —“You’re conflating “good””— Anything that is not bad is good. Bads can be known. The preferential, the good (reciprocal preferential), are preferences. Whether they are preference or good is an opinion. Whether they are ‘bad’ and a violation of reciprocity is not an opinion. It is a fact (by Logical Necessity). —“Sacrifices”– No animal, including humans, demonstrates altruism, only kin selection, option buying, status acquisition (opportunity gain and discount), and reciprocity (debt) payment against status loss (and therefore opportunity loss). We cast this self interest as virtuous in order to acquire more of such behavior by grant of status to heroic display. —“…being good…”— Man is, by all evidence, amoral – preying upon or cooperating with as suits his self interest. Given a long time frame, it is in one’s self interest to cooperate because of the outsized returns on cooperation versus predation and boycott. One is ‘virtuous’ because all ‘virtues’ decrease the opportunity costs of cooperation and provide discounts on those higher returns. The fact that we attribute status (pay for with opportunity discounts [trust, recommendation, referrals], is merely compensation (investment) in the production of reciprocity by those with most evidence of it. QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM I don’t make mistakes. It’s my job. 😉 lol

  • 20) Transcendence (Evolution), by Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, The Nat

    20) Transcendence (Evolution), by Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, The Natural Law of Tort, An Independent Judiciary (Nomocracy), and the only option remaining under all of the above: Markets for voluntary cooperation in all aspects of life.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 13:44:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055455045276352513

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @curtdoolittle @WorMartiN You also end by saying one should study law, not literature. First off, I don’t study literature. Secondly, how is that an argument? And how is if Marx is liable for murder at all relevant to my points? I’m genuinely confused.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

  • 12) … who were seeking to restate the successful group evolutionary strategy o

    12) … who were seeking to restate the successful group evolutionary strategy of western civilization (transcendence: by adaptive velocity ) using Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth and Duty, Jury and Tort Law, and Markets (empirical evidence of reciprocity) in everything …


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 13:30:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055451654227673091

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @curtdoolittle @WorMartiN You also end by saying one should study law, not literature. First off, I don’t study literature. Secondly, how is that an argument? And how is if Marx is liable for murder at all relevant to my points? I’m genuinely confused.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

  • 9) One is not liable for his intentions but for his consequences. One acts given

    9) One is not liable for his intentions but for his consequences. One acts given the resources available(means), the institutions available (opportunity) to produce reciprocity (meritocracy) and therefore continuous eugenic evolution (survival from competition) or the opposite.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 13:22:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055449542328487936

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @curtdoolittle @WorMartiN You also end by saying one should study law, not literature. First off, I don’t study literature. Secondly, how is that an argument? And how is if Marx is liable for murder at all relevant to my points? I’m genuinely confused.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

  • 7) And that under Falsificationism (Survival) from tests of coherence, consisten

    7) And that under Falsificationism (Survival) from tests of coherence, consistency, correspondence, existential possibility, rationality, reciprocity, limits and completeness (what we test in court) such Frauds (Lies to cover Thefts) are exposed. Leaving only truth candidates.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 13:18:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055448476576825345

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @curtdoolittle @WorMartiN You also end by saying one should study law, not literature. First off, I don’t study literature. Secondly, how is that an argument? And how is if Marx is liable for murder at all relevant to my points? I’m genuinely confused.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

  • 4) Hicks’ argument, which you did not understand, is that POMO is an evolution o

    4) Hicks’ argument, which you did not understand, is that POMO is an evolution of the (Marxist) means by which to circumvent reciprocity (science, economics, and law) by claiming power (science/truth, law/power, economics/necessity) is sentimental and psychological (arbitrary).


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 13:10:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055446588112470016

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @curtdoolittle @WorMartiN You also end by saying one should study law, not literature. First off, I don’t study literature. Secondly, how is that an argument? And how is if Marx is liable for murder at all relevant to my points? I’m genuinely confused.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

  • 3) Pomo is an attempt to circumvent (conduct a fraud) by casting power as arbitr

    3) Pomo is an attempt to circumvent (conduct a fraud) by casting power as arbitrary, truth as arbitrary, reciprocity as arbitrary when they are necessary, and a presumption of an arbitrary good (equality rather than evolutionary survival) as justification for the fraud.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 13:08:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055445962762665984

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @curtdoolittle @WorMartiN You also end by saying one should study law, not literature. First off, I don’t study literature. Secondly, how is that an argument? And how is if Marx is liable for murder at all relevant to my points? I’m genuinely confused.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

  • 2) Scientist: Truth (coherent, consistent, correspondent, rational reciprocal, l

    2) Scientist: Truth (coherent, consistent, correspondent, rational reciprocal, limited, and complete) is power independent. Either you are engaging in full reciprocity correspondent with reality or you are not.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 12:58:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055443586219675648

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @curtdoolittle @WorMartiN You also end by saying one should study law, not literature. First off, I don’t study literature. Secondly, how is that an argument? And how is if Marx is liable for murder at all relevant to my points? I’m genuinely confused.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

  • “Q: DEFINE PARASITISM?”— PARASITISM: Violation of Reciprocity by the impositio

    —“Q: DEFINE PARASITISM?”—

    PARASITISM: Violation of Reciprocity by the imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by non physical means: free riding, socialization of losses/privatization of commons, fraud in its host of forms, rent seeking, conspiracy (statism) etc.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 08:34:00 UTC