What Is the Difference Between Morals, Ethics and Manners? https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/what-is-the-difference-between-morals-ethics-and-manners/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 04:21:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265498224481185802
Dec 24, 2019, 3:33 PM DRAFT – WORK IN PROGRESS (Core) What is the difference between morals, ethics and manners? CORRECT ANSWER: It’s not complicated – if we explain it in economic rather than ‘moral’ language. Western civilization is a commercial civilization (middle class), and that is the reason for our wealth, cleanliness, orderliness, customer service, and tolerance. The west was more successful than all but the Japanese at suppression of selfish public behavior, and for this reason was able to produce commons that people did not impose costs upon, providing incentive (lacking disincentive) to produce commons, and therefore creating the high returns on the commons. (Effectively, westerners treat the commons – common spaces and everything in them – as sacred). Engage only in completely voluntary exchanges. That means do not impose costs upon others whether attention (mental), disgust(emotion), or action (body), on their demonstrated interests (things, family, business), and the “commons” anything the public may make use of. Instead, pay the cost of controlling yourself, by maintaining ‘situational awareness of others’ (consideration), especially by managing your children. The public space is not something you may make use of as you desire. it is not your home.
MANNERS Manners advertise fitness for reciprocity. The more costly the manners, the higher the suppression of impulse, the greater the demonstration of agency and training, the better the promise and better the predictor of fitness for reciprocity. Respect consists of using manners to demonstrate reciprocity and presumption of reciprocity regardless of differences between parties, including differences in the status spectrum, differences in wants and needs, differences in opinion, and differences in preferences. Disrespect consists of irreciprocity presumption of irreciprocity given differences between parties, including differences in the status spectrum, differences in wants and needs, differences in knowledge, habit, and opinion, and differences in preferences. Insult consists of (…) Resistance consist of (…) Defection consists of (…) || Spectrum: genetic > sexual > social > economic > political > military Display * Hygiene * Dress * MovementWord * SpeechDeed * Action
Manners are your ‘advertising’ for worthiness of respect. Lack of manners are your ‘advertising’ for unworthiness of respect: meaning, not giving your attention, consideration, or resources (time, energy). And poor manners require others actively disrespect you (‘punish you’) for imposing costs upon others. ETHICS (…) MORALS (…)
Dec 24, 2019, 3:33 PM DRAFT – WORK IN PROGRESS (Core) What is the difference between morals, ethics and manners? CORRECT ANSWER: It’s not complicated – if we explain it in economic rather than ‘moral’ language. Western civilization is a commercial civilization (middle class), and that is the reason for our wealth, cleanliness, orderliness, customer service, and tolerance. The west was more successful than all but the Japanese at suppression of selfish public behavior, and for this reason was able to produce commons that people did not impose costs upon, providing incentive (lacking disincentive) to produce commons, and therefore creating the high returns on the commons. (Effectively, westerners treat the commons – common spaces and everything in them – as sacred). Engage only in completely voluntary exchanges. That means do not impose costs upon others whether attention (mental), disgust(emotion), or action (body), on their demonstrated interests (things, family, business), and the “commons” anything the public may make use of. Instead, pay the cost of controlling yourself, by maintaining ‘situational awareness of others’ (consideration), especially by managing your children. The public space is not something you may make use of as you desire. it is not your home.
MANNERS Manners advertise fitness for reciprocity. The more costly the manners, the higher the suppression of impulse, the greater the demonstration of agency and training, the better the promise and better the predictor of fitness for reciprocity. Respect consists of using manners to demonstrate reciprocity and presumption of reciprocity regardless of differences between parties, including differences in the status spectrum, differences in wants and needs, differences in opinion, and differences in preferences. Disrespect consists of irreciprocity presumption of irreciprocity given differences between parties, including differences in the status spectrum, differences in wants and needs, differences in knowledge, habit, and opinion, and differences in preferences. Insult consists of (…) Resistance consist of (…) Defection consists of (…) || Spectrum: genetic > sexual > social > economic > political > military Display * Hygiene * Dress * MovementWord * SpeechDeed * Action
Manners are your ‘advertising’ for worthiness of respect. Lack of manners are your ‘advertising’ for unworthiness of respect: meaning, not giving your attention, consideration, or resources (time, energy). And poor manners require others actively disrespect you (‘punish you’) for imposing costs upon others. ETHICS (…) MORALS (…)
Soul = Account of Debts (threats) and Credits (discounts). https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/soul-account-of-debts-threats-and-credits-discounts/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 04:06:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265494646962237440
Dec 29, 2019, 1:03 PM Soul = account of debts (threats) and credits (discounts). We are extremely conscious of our status, debts, and credits. We can instantly judge our status debts and credits when we meet others or walk into a room or walk down a street. The Soul is a supernatural narrative of semitic origin like mathematical platonism is an ideal narrative of greek origin – both of which compensate for ancient man’s lack of understanding of the nervous system – a problem we no longer have. You live on in the memories of others as information. Your soul is your balance sheet in the social economy of your people.
Dec 29, 2019, 1:03 PM Soul = account of debts (threats) and credits (discounts). We are extremely conscious of our status, debts, and credits. We can instantly judge our status debts and credits when we meet others or walk into a room or walk down a street. The Soul is a supernatural narrative of semitic origin like mathematical platonism is an ideal narrative of greek origin – both of which compensate for ancient man’s lack of understanding of the nervous system – a problem we no longer have. You live on in the memories of others as information. Your soul is your balance sheet in the social economy of your people.
The “Will of The Gods” Was a Convenient Escape of The Responsibility of Liability. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/the-will-of-the-gods-was-a-convenient-escape-of-the-responsibility-of-liability/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 00:55:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265446475309424642
Jan 2, 2020, 1:18 PM by JWarren Prescott The concept of the supernatural, ie. beyond nature, outside our reality, magical, being independent of logic and inexplicable by science because it defies the laws of physics, is from the infancy of human civilization where we had no idea what the natural world was. It was our attempt to fill the gaps of understanding. The unintended consequences of the lack of understanding was the rise of the huckster class – the priests, those apex parasitical manipulators of mankind’s fears of the unknown. They leveraged their verbal skills to political power as rulers were the only ones capable of protecting them from scrutiny of their failed predictions and the liability of malpractice. The hucksters always knew that the warlords, kings and rulers were generally far more gullible to the supernatural as it was a legitimation of, and a securing of their right to rule and a comfort to their insecurities of bad decisions. The “will of the gods” was a convenient escape of the responsibility of liability.
Jan 2, 2020, 1:18 PM by JWarren Prescott The concept of the supernatural, ie. beyond nature, outside our reality, magical, being independent of logic and inexplicable by science because it defies the laws of physics, is from the infancy of human civilization where we had no idea what the natural world was. It was our attempt to fill the gaps of understanding. The unintended consequences of the lack of understanding was the rise of the huckster class – the priests, those apex parasitical manipulators of mankind’s fears of the unknown. They leveraged their verbal skills to political power as rulers were the only ones capable of protecting them from scrutiny of their failed predictions and the liability of malpractice. The hucksters always knew that the warlords, kings and rulers were generally far more gullible to the supernatural as it was a legitimation of, and a securing of their right to rule and a comfort to their insecurities of bad decisions. The “will of the gods” was a convenient escape of the responsibility of liability.
Jan 5, 2020, 5:23 PM 0) Reality: all contracts are just form letters with names and dates in them. All that changes is the list of assets, and the rights and obligations of both parties – and mostly, it’s the obligations for both parties, ’cause rights only exist if the contract fails. The courts have spent decades since the rise of text databases in the 80’s making sure that there is settled law for almost everything you can bring before it – so much so that the only job left in court is who either (a) lied, or (b) failed due diligence (c ) sought an unearned premium at the other’s expense. 1) Surprisingly lawyers are taught contract law, not how to write contracts. And they will write for other lawyers most of the time, sometimes for in-house counsel, other times for skilled people, and otherwise for ordinary citizens. So absent this they learn to write contracts by the cut-and-paste method of contract development. So contracts accumulate ‘waste’ so to speak in most offices. They don’t accumulate solutions to problems. The courts (federal, state, local) do not put out standard contract formats that force what’s called “transactional” work into standard form. When in reality, the law does not grant much flexibility in these matters. Terms of art are largely bullshit claims. Judges are not stupid. Jurors are not stupid. The reality is that contracts are not complicated. My particular ‘thing’ is shareholder agreements. They don’t have to be complicated. They have to hit al the points in simple language. All contracts are like this, if (a) definitions are put on a separate page, (b) the before-and-after diagrams are displayed in visual form, ( c) a project-plan for signing the agreements in the appropriate sequence and the purpose of each one is stated in that plan (document), that states the title or interest change it enacts. (think of it as an accounting transaction with ledger entries). (d) each section includes a whereas “this is what we seek to accomplish” and therefore the terms of the contract in legal prose. (lawyers will resist this because it prevents people from pulling shit out of thin air, but that’s exactly why to do it. And this is the most simple – just capture the bullet list of concerns from everyone involved and make sure you’ve resolved them satisfactorily for all parties. And this is the most uncomfortable: Those engaging the contract do not inform the lawyers of the full suite of advantages that may arise from the deal, and the lawyers do not list all the reasons that they think the contract (arrangement) will fail. Truth: I generally have to tell lawyers to let me manage risk (that’s my job as a business person) and you create the level of contract suitable to my target risk. This is how you ‘Price’ a contract so to speak. By risk reward and resource expenditure your time. 2) Current legal training is antithetical to business, because it begins as teaching the adversarial method – it does not teach means of reaching compromise, settlement, or methods of cooperation that must adapt to changing circumstances. This leads people in defense to ‘double down’ on conflict rather than double down on compromise. This is not how business people resolve conflicts. So really there are two stages. the ones exterior to the contract, and the terms that will fight before the court if the contract fails. My understanding is that this is a problem of failing to require via positiva statements of intent for every via-negativa bit of blame. In other words contracts do not spend time on the via positiva means of settling error, failure of due diligence, change in circumstance. 3) The legal teams try to add unnecessary value to justify jobs (this is endemic). I see this all over the place. The problem is malincentives in legal fees: especially hourly. The problem is revenue constraints. In other words we have too many lawyers, working too hard, to drive up fees, and a court that doesn’t stop it, and a population that has no choice. 4) Courts work too often by win/lose instead of proportional settlements. This is partly by design to force settlement prior to court, and then turning the courtroom into a lottery of uncertainty, where the outcome is worse than settlement – it is not what the framers or common law judges in history intended. 5) Irreciprocal competency and scale of legal teams means they compete for providing opportunities for advantage rather than due diligence in preventing advantage. 6) systemic abandonment of moral norms has led to the need to articulate what was normative in law. 7) the law is lagging behind the rate of evolution of the complexity of contracts. 8) The law does not prevent entrapments as it used to, because it defers to the wisdom of business people (good) but not to baiting into hazard. 9) Law does not punish (as it used to) abuses of the court, the law, the contract so it is worthwhile for full time legal teams or lawyers to bill by the hour to use the economics to drive a settlement or court decision. That’s just the surface.