(FB 1550152574 Timestamp) Your ‘libertarianism’ changes rapidly once you have daughters. Your progressivism changes once you have to support a family. Your conservatism doesn’t change with daughters or families, or enterprises or nations.
Theme: Responsibility
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550341174 Timestamp) KOHLBER’S MORAL DEVELOPMENT (h/t: Rosenborg Predmetsky) Level 1. Preconventional Morality The earliest stage of moral development, obedience, and punishment is especially common in young children, but adults are also capable of expressing this type of reasoning. At this stage, Kohlberg says, children see rules as fixed and absolute. Obeying the rules is important because it is a means to avoid punishment. At the individualism and exchange stage of moral development, children account for individual points of view and judge actions based on how they serve individual needs. In the Heinz dilemma, children argued that the best course of action was the choice that best-served Heinzâs needs. Reciprocity is possible at this point in moral development, but only if it serves one’s own interests. Level 2. Conventional Morality Often referred to as the “good boy-good girl” orientation, the interpersonal relationships stage of moral development is focused on living up to social expectations and roles. There is an emphasis on conformity, being “nice,” and consideration of how choices influence relationships. This stage is focused on maintaining social order. At this stage of moral development, people begin to consider society as a whole when making judgments. The focus is on maintaining law and order by following the rules, doing oneâs duty and respecting authority. Level 3. Postconventional Morality The ideas of a social contract and individual rights cause people in the next stage to begin to account for the differing values, opinions, and beliefs of other people. Rules of law are important for maintaining a society, but members of the society should agree upon these standards. Kohlbergâs final level of moral reasoning is based on universal ethical principles and abstract reasoning. At this stage, people follow these internalized principles of justice, even if they conflict with laws and rules.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550341174 Timestamp) KOHLBER’S MORAL DEVELOPMENT (h/t: Rosenborg Predmetsky) Level 1. Preconventional Morality The earliest stage of moral development, obedience, and punishment is especially common in young children, but adults are also capable of expressing this type of reasoning. At this stage, Kohlberg says, children see rules as fixed and absolute. Obeying the rules is important because it is a means to avoid punishment. At the individualism and exchange stage of moral development, children account for individual points of view and judge actions based on how they serve individual needs. In the Heinz dilemma, children argued that the best course of action was the choice that best-served Heinzâs needs. Reciprocity is possible at this point in moral development, but only if it serves one’s own interests. Level 2. Conventional Morality Often referred to as the “good boy-good girl” orientation, the interpersonal relationships stage of moral development is focused on living up to social expectations and roles. There is an emphasis on conformity, being “nice,” and consideration of how choices influence relationships. This stage is focused on maintaining social order. At this stage of moral development, people begin to consider society as a whole when making judgments. The focus is on maintaining law and order by following the rules, doing oneâs duty and respecting authority. Level 3. Postconventional Morality The ideas of a social contract and individual rights cause people in the next stage to begin to account for the differing values, opinions, and beliefs of other people. Rules of law are important for maintaining a society, but members of the society should agree upon these standards. Kohlbergâs final level of moral reasoning is based on universal ethical principles and abstract reasoning. At this stage, people follow these internalized principles of justice, even if they conflict with laws and rules.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550407650 Timestamp) PROPERTARIANISM VS IT’S APPLICATION The law exists so that those with material interests (power) preserve the value of cooperation by forcing people into, and limiting them to, the market, and denying them non-market means (within the limits of cost and ability). Propertarianism explains how to use this law (logic) to suppress those forms of parasitism that are currently not, because we lacked a means of doing so. In particular (and I have only come to understand this myself over the past few years) it suppresses baiting into moral hazard, which is the general technique of exploitation that is in use. (including your sophism above). P it’s purely empirical. “people do this”, “this is why”, “self interest of those with interests”, “where almost all but the marginal cases have interests.” You can build any political order with P that you want precisely because it is an algorithmic logic (grammar), as long as you do it truthfully. To falsify P would require you falsify rational choice, reciprocity, and self interest. To state you would prefer to built some other form of government no matter how honest or dishonest, productive or parasitic, would still be explicable in P, and peoples’ behavior under it would still be universally expliable with P, because P is not a philosophy (should) but a science (is). It is the science and logic of what we call the psychological, linguistic, social sciences, and political sciences. Now you can ‘bitch’ about the fact that I use this logic to advocate for rule of law – the most parsimonious expression of that science – because you like or do not like that particular world (because it would crush ‘creativity in dishonesty’) which means ‘witty people’ have no more utility in their manipulation of others in order to obtain self image, social status, and various forms of influence. But that is the point altogether. P is simply ‘true’. What you do it it is a matter of your (power-group’s) preferences. I prefer to crush the abrahamic deceits (baiting into moral hazard by sophisms, pseudosciences, supernaturalisms, and deceits) and to use this to save my people from their lies. Maybe you prefer otherwise. But I am fairly sure that the mainstream will prefer my argument and policy recommendations over the alternatives and this lowers their resistance to its implementation relative to your alternatives. Again. Please don’t try to be smarter. You aren’t in the first place (even close) and P is quite a superpower – just like reason, empiricism, and science were superpowers before it. The more I use P, the better I get at it, the more I understand the revolution in human thought and experience that would be brought about is as great as the previous revolutions provided by western thought (reason, empiricism, science).
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550686043 Timestamp) No man has any rights over any other, except in the group’s righthing of a wrong before the jury. “The Rights of Anglo Saxons”. A man has duty to a landholder (sovereign), in exchange for land and service. This is the meaning of ‘sovereignty’. It is not ‘individualism’. It is SOVEREIGNTY.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550686043 Timestamp) No man has any rights over any other, except in the group’s righthing of a wrong before the jury. “The Rights of Anglo Saxons”. A man has duty to a landholder (sovereign), in exchange for land and service. This is the meaning of ‘sovereignty’. It is not ‘individualism’. It is SOVEREIGNTY.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551019955 Timestamp) BEN BAKER ‘GETS IT’ —“I’m trying to understand. … Law is then a summary of natural (proper and just) consequences for action/inaction. As far as it can be enforced depends on the affordability…this would also determine the willingness of men to administer and enforce the law via Incentives. It’s an immovable object, or very nearly. Government (governance deferred from the individual to a collective specialising in law and violence, held in common somewhat and funded by citizens) is the flexible part, the expression of that described above but adjusted to each population with their endemic characteristics, abilities etc. Holy shit.”—Benjamin Baker You just graduated my friend. Welcome to the judiciary. 😉
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551019955 Timestamp) BEN BAKER ‘GETS IT’ —“I’m trying to understand. … Law is then a summary of natural (proper and just) consequences for action/inaction. As far as it can be enforced depends on the affordability…this would also determine the willingness of men to administer and enforce the law via Incentives. It’s an immovable object, or very nearly. Government (governance deferred from the individual to a collective specialising in law and violence, held in common somewhat and funded by citizens) is the flexible part, the expression of that described above but adjusted to each population with their endemic characteristics, abilities etc. Holy shit.”—Benjamin Baker You just graduated my friend. Welcome to the judiciary. 😉
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551106968 Timestamp) THE LAW ON RECIPROCITY, RESTITUTION, PUNISHMENT, AND PREVENTION Restitution (1x) for Accident Double (2x) Damages for failure to admit Triple (3x) Damages against individuals for harm Decuple (10x) Damages against groups for harm. The law has three purposes for three parties to any suit. 1. Restitution (victim) 2. Punishment (criminal) 3. Prevention (polity) Groups must be HEAVILY incentivized to limit their own behavior since sacrificial actors exist in every group, and can advance group interests if not controlled by the group. Hence 1. Punishment of the individual. 2. Punishment of the individual’s family (insurers of individuals) 3. Punishment of the group (insurers of families) …
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551106968 Timestamp) THE LAW ON RECIPROCITY, RESTITUTION, PUNISHMENT, AND PREVENTION Restitution (1x) for Accident Double (2x) Damages for failure to admit Triple (3x) Damages against individuals for harm Decuple (10x) Damages against groups for harm. The law has three purposes for three parties to any suit. 1. Restitution (victim) 2. Punishment (criminal) 3. Prevention (polity) Groups must be HEAVILY incentivized to limit their own behavior since sacrificial actors exist in every group, and can advance group interests if not controlled by the group. Hence 1. Punishment of the individual. 2. Punishment of the individual’s family (insurers of individuals) 3. Punishment of the group (insurers of families) …