Theme: Reciprocity

  • THINKING: Ok. So, attacking and falsifying my own possible desire for unnecessar

    THINKING:

    Ok. So, attacking and falsifying my own possible desire for unnecessary monopoly, one can create a natural law nomocracy with a minority, majority, or homogenous population.

    1) An Aristocratic Minority (a Caste) – Military, Judiciary, Sheriffs

    2) A Republican Majority(a Polity) – Add Banking and Industry

    3) A Democratic Monopoly (a People) – Add labor and svcs.

    Let’s say you take a caste of people, like the spartans, and specialize in rule. If that rule is by natural law, and produces commons for both rulers and ruled, I think that’s a great arrangement. You might call this fascism, but you might actually have a population ‘hire’ you to rule them for their own good.

    Let’s say you take a set of aristocratic families and their relations constituting either a sizable minority or a majority, and rule by natural law and produce commons that the nobility and the propertied classes choose to. You might all this oligarchy, but it certainly appears to be the most successful model on earth.

    Let’s say you take a whole population set up an hereditary monarchy, a regional nobility, professional administration(private not public) and a market for the commons where all classes have virtual houses that can produce commons through trade.

    I mean, you can implement Natural Law (Nomocracy) via Aristocracy, Republic, or Democracy, with minority, majority, totality (homogenous), by starting with a monarchy, adding a senate, adding houses for the classes with levels of enfranchisement depending upon whom you do and do not want to include.

    So is that all I need to produce? And, why do we need a homogenous polity? I mean, arguably demand-for-enfranchisement is actually a bad thing?


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-06 15:44:00 UTC

  • DISTRIBUTING DEFECTIVE SPEECH? If you sell a product that’s defective, or delive

    DISTRIBUTING DEFECTIVE SPEECH?

    If you sell a product that’s defective, or deliver a service that was defective, were you responsible for the consequences? Of course you were. Because you failed to perform due diligence.

    how do we know whether you failed to perform due diligence out of deception, out of laziness, or out of incompetence?

    This is the basic question. Does it matter if you cause damage intentionally or unintentionally? No. We still hold each other liable for the damage we do.

    What percent of people’s speech (bullshit) do they know is false or half true, or immoral or just wrong (bullshit) but they do it anyway to see if they can get away with it?

    Conversely, what percent of people’s speech have they done sufficient due diligence to insure that they do not spread a falsehood, half truth, immoral, or just ‘wrong’ information?

    What percent of people cannot be trusted to perform that due diligence – simply because they lack the ability?

    How would the world differ if we learned to speak truthfully along with our learning reading, writing, grammar, and arithmetic?

    It would be a very different place.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-05 18:31:00 UTC

  • “Agape (brotherly love)=Mutual cooperation is the least costly survival strategy

    —“Agape (brotherly love)=Mutual cooperation is the least costly survival strategy (until it is not). Natural law.”—Shanaynay Tomson

    (Notice how he transformed a via positiva into a truth statement by the simple addition of limits.)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-04 08:43:00 UTC

  • “How can we most effectively and probabilistically get as much of our civilizati

    —“How can we most effectively and probabilistically get as much of our civilization to actually conform to Natural Law as much as is necessary to prevent the collapse inevitable on its current trajectory as quickly as possible?I think answering this question in practice rather than theory will very likely to require us to be pragmatic, not idealistic. Having said all of that, what do you offer the average man to motivate him to discipline himself sufficiently to take the responsibility required to fight the war you propose and win? Intellectuals alone does not a revolution make.”—Joel

    (CD: Actually, as far as I know, intellectuals providing solutions for a small number of angry and frustrated young men, always a revolution makes.)

    Curt Doolittle An interestingly phrased question.

    1) i think you are applying the following biases:

    – false consensus bias

    – group attribution error

    – illusion of transparency

    2) There already are more than sufficient numbers to revolt. they only need a plan they think can succeed and leadership.

    3) The question isn’t how many can we get to revolt, but how many can we encourage not resist the revolt.

    4) I don’t put forth belief systems, but institutional recipes that are *easily* operationalized. I put forth criticisms of anything that does not survive deflation into the grammar of incentives which all cognition, emotion, and langauge exists to justify. In other words, I have the direction of causality correct.

    5) What I am offering to the people who might resist revolt is de-financialization, and de-deception, and a rough redistribution of the 20th century’s malappropriation by the upper 1% to the middle and working classes. The full consequences of this redistribution will make it almost impossible for them middle and working classes to dismiss it.

    6) The cost of this is the loss of ability for the media, the public intellectuals, the activists and the politicians both right and left to engage in lying; and the ‘cost’ is that they must take action to prosecute ‘liars’ (for compensation); and then, the other ‘cost’ is the market demand that they gradually learn how to express their middle and working class ethics in rational and reciprocal terms. (which will evolve normally as did rational, statistical, and scientific speech).

    7) Voluntary disassociation as well as association, which will allow people with lower incomes to live near their kin instead of pushing our kin down into mixed neighborhoods where they obtain bad behavior and create class conflict. Right now people associate by tribe (neighborhood) by the cost of homes and the cost of local education. This creates a caste system and low trust rather than a kinship system and high trust.

    The optional costs with extraordinary benefits are:

    1) withdraw copyright protection and replace it with creative commons protection alone (profiting from use). This will destroy the hollywood sector’s ability to produce propaganda.

    2) replace the patent process with whether the produce required extra-market R&D subsidy or whether the patent is purely defensive at the expense of consumers.

    3) vast restructuring of the academy but most importantly, that the academy must carry the student loan debt (direct from the treasury), and can only be paid out of future earnings over ten years.

    (This set of optional changes is quite long. I wont’ go into them.)

    The radical changes are more important:

    10) the devolution of federal (central) powers to the resolution of conflict over property between the states, and repeal of the civil war amendments.

    The preservation of the military, treasury, and insurer of last resort functions. In other words, reducing the federal system to a utility shared by the states or regions.

    11) voluntary secession of any region at the neighborhood level in exchange for assuming their portion of debt in the original currency, including any territorial assets.

    Etc.

    CLOSING

    This is a pretty libertarian solution to the problem. It says ‘you may go your way as long as I may go mine’, while preserving the ONLY value of scale: insurance via military, treasury, ‘insurance’, and judiciary.

    What it does not do is recommend anarchism, but micro-nationalism.

    AFTERWARD

    Markets are the only way to defeat all other method of order – because the higher the velocity of trial and error the greater the retained advantage.

    You can catch up to markets by authoritarianism – that’s evidence.

    Because you can use existing information discovered by trial and error.

    You can spend down accumulated advantage with social democracy – until no more advantage remains to be spent.

    But you cannot defeat markets. Particularly INSURED markets.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-03 10:46:00 UTC

  • “Would you agree: reciprocity provides the science of reciprocity, and the “reas

    —“Would you agree: reciprocity provides the science of reciprocity, and the “reason” to be moral absent religion is that it’s an effective strategy for group level survival/competition – and effective personally because of the social value of being reciprocal and cost of not being?”—Sean Lester

    Yes. the more moral, the lower friction, the greater risk tolerance, the higher velocity, the greater wealth.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-01 21:29:00 UTC

  • If Libertarian = “Without Duty” then it’s simply impossible

    If Libertarian = “Without Duty” then it’s simply impossible.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-01 21:01:00 UTC

  • WHEN YOU SAY THE WEST IS LIBERTARIAN (middle class burgher) RATHER THAN ARISTOCR

    WHEN YOU SAY THE WEST IS LIBERTARIAN (middle class burgher) RATHER THAN ARISTOCRATIC (upper class military)…

    ….I’m saying that you’re using the term liberty (absent duty of

    reciprocity in defense) and backdating it to sovereignty (including duty of reciprocity in defense) in order to continue the falsehood that what you call the condition of liberty is possible by other than militial reciprocal insurance by every man in the franchise without substitution, to a degree that is determined by market demands, producing commons to a degree that is determined by market demands, and that exit is to exit the duty (Payment) for returns of sovereignty.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 14:34:00 UTC

  • THE TEST OF TRUTH VS LIES IS EASY: Libertarianism = rights w/o obligations -vs-

    THE TEST OF TRUTH VS LIES IS EASY:

    Libertarianism = rights w/o obligations

    -vs-

    Sovereignty = only possible to posses rights in exchange for obligations (reciprocal insurance)

    Libertarianism = “gimme” = Permission or gift = limited only by my willingness to exit. (pastoralists)

    -vs-

    Sovereignty = “fight to insure each other” = Exchange = Limited by market demand. (land holders)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 14:24:00 UTC

  • The market for the choice between violence, reciprocity, and boycott. “Every man

    The market for the choice between violence, reciprocity, and boycott.

    “Every man is his own legislature”

    in other words, just as international law is governed by reciprocity today, individuals can govern one another by reciprocity in the market for the choice between violence, reciprocity, and boycott.

    They must just produce commons sufficient to defend themselves from the market of others who would institute a different order other than the sovereign.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 13:33:00 UTC

  • by Adam Voight Assuming humans evolved, then we can deduce that the two supreme

    by Adam Voight

    Assuming humans evolved, then we can deduce that the two supreme rules for humans to follow are: avoid parasitism, and act so that the maxim of your action can be universalized to minimize the extinction of all non-parasites.

    This ethic will maximize cooperation among all rational agents. All other laws must fall short of this ideal.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-30 17:34:00 UTC