Honor among men has no color. It may be true that at present, the probability varies with color. But no man is incapable of Honor It’s a matter of will, effort, and discipline. Strong men stand at the wall of war, invasion, and conversion. Strong men stand at the wall of violence, theft and fraud. Strong men stand at the wall of manners, ethics, and morality Strong men stand at the wall of truth in word and deed. Honor does not seek approval. Honor knows no opinion. Its seeks to create a garden which we call civilization. And in that garden we all can prosper. For generation, after generation, after generation Not just so others may sleep well in their beds. But so we and ours can as well.
Theme: Responsibility
-
Honor Among Men Has No Color
Honor among men has no color. It may be true that at present, the probability varies with color. But no man is incapable of Honor It’s a matter of will, effort, and discipline. Strong men stand at the wall of war, invasion, and conversion. Strong men stand at the wall of violence, theft and fraud. Strong men stand at the wall of manners, ethics, and morality Strong men stand at the wall of truth in word and deed. Honor does not seek approval. Honor knows no opinion. Its seeks to create a garden which we call civilization. And in that garden we all can prosper. For generation, after generation, after generation Not just so others may sleep well in their beds. But so we and ours can as well.
-
The Ony Authority Is Totality Of Consequence
***There is no authority but totality of consequence*** Forever ignorant, forever ill-informed, forever limited by reason, we have increasingly general rules to rely upon when we must make the dozens if not hundreds of decisions we make daily. To make those decisions, we rely upon those methods of decision making we call manners, ethics, morals, traditions, history, natural laws, and formulae, consist entirely of theories that have survived over time, through a multitude of uses. Infrequently in human history, these theories change along with the great shifts in our geography, economy, technology, and knowledge and cause changes to manners, ethics, morals, traditions, our interpretation of and value of historical examples, and the set of formulae that we use most frequently. And we demonstrate those changes by altering our family structure, property allocations, and means of commons production: the structure of reproduction, the structure of production of goods and services, and the structure of production of commons. We can, from this history, given enough ‘shifts’ to compare with each other, derive basic rules of human cooperation that remain unchanged regardless of the weights and values and decision criteria we use in each era. These general rules are what we refer to as “natural law”. And that Natural Law is reducible to this principle: In any given structure of reproduction, production, and production of commons, all normative manners, ethics, morals, traditions, histories, myths, and institutions will adapt such that we produce the least imposition of costs upon one another’s expended efforts -parasitism- necessary to preserve that structure of reproduction, production, and production of commons. We seem, in each era, to produce some variation between Nash and Pareto optimums to until all possible rents at all possible levels are consumed. This maximization of rents (efficiency) creates both efficiency and fragility. And then when the necessary shocks arrive to trade routes, disease, climate, populations, war, immigration, conversion, the society cannot be reordered under the existing system of production and rents. This is why small nations are superior to large: they experiment small, and they fail small, and are subject to constant competition that forces early failure. This is the secret to western civilization. Because we cooperate better than other peoples by the near total suppression of free riding, and the inescapability of contract, we can create networks instead of hierarchies, and remain flexible at the cost of constant competition which gainst us constant adaptation. The USA will fail, just as Europe will fail – and we must make them fail. Because scale merely misleads us with visible efficiencies at the cost of invisible fragilities by maximizing rents along with maximizing redistribution. This is the law of nature. This is the law of man. Thus endeth the lesson. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
The Ony Authority Is Totality Of Consequence
***There is no authority but totality of consequence*** Forever ignorant, forever ill-informed, forever limited by reason, we have increasingly general rules to rely upon when we must make the dozens if not hundreds of decisions we make daily. To make those decisions, we rely upon those methods of decision making we call manners, ethics, morals, traditions, history, natural laws, and formulae, consist entirely of theories that have survived over time, through a multitude of uses. Infrequently in human history, these theories change along with the great shifts in our geography, economy, technology, and knowledge and cause changes to manners, ethics, morals, traditions, our interpretation of and value of historical examples, and the set of formulae that we use most frequently. And we demonstrate those changes by altering our family structure, property allocations, and means of commons production: the structure of reproduction, the structure of production of goods and services, and the structure of production of commons. We can, from this history, given enough ‘shifts’ to compare with each other, derive basic rules of human cooperation that remain unchanged regardless of the weights and values and decision criteria we use in each era. These general rules are what we refer to as “natural law”. And that Natural Law is reducible to this principle: In any given structure of reproduction, production, and production of commons, all normative manners, ethics, morals, traditions, histories, myths, and institutions will adapt such that we produce the least imposition of costs upon one another’s expended efforts -parasitism- necessary to preserve that structure of reproduction, production, and production of commons. We seem, in each era, to produce some variation between Nash and Pareto optimums to until all possible rents at all possible levels are consumed. This maximization of rents (efficiency) creates both efficiency and fragility. And then when the necessary shocks arrive to trade routes, disease, climate, populations, war, immigration, conversion, the society cannot be reordered under the existing system of production and rents. This is why small nations are superior to large: they experiment small, and they fail small, and are subject to constant competition that forces early failure. This is the secret to western civilization. Because we cooperate better than other peoples by the near total suppression of free riding, and the inescapability of contract, we can create networks instead of hierarchies, and remain flexible at the cost of constant competition which gainst us constant adaptation. The USA will fail, just as Europe will fail – and we must make them fail. Because scale merely misleads us with visible efficiencies at the cost of invisible fragilities by maximizing rents along with maximizing redistribution. This is the law of nature. This is the law of man. Thus endeth the lesson. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
Assume’s one WANTS her attention, rather than to discipline her for it’s misuse
Assume’s one WANTS her attention, rather than to discipline her for it’s misuse.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-06 14:20:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/784035530044481536
Reply addressees: @panzerbunny457 @BronzeAgePerv @NationalismRise
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/783003858800869376
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/783003858800869376
-
ONE QUESTION FOR MEN: IN WHAT PRIORITY DO YOU PRACTICE THESE ROLES? 1 – DEFENDER
ONE QUESTION FOR MEN: IN WHAT PRIORITY DO YOU PRACTICE THESE ROLES?
1 – DEFENDER: Warrior/Sheriff/Rescue/Athlete,
2 – COUNSELOR: Priest/Intellectual/Scientist/Judge
3 – PRODUCER: Governor/Financier/Merchant/Craftsman/Laborer,
4 – CARETAKER: Lover/Husband/Father/Brother/Friend
THANKS
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-03 03:23:00 UTC
-
Taleb vs Doolittle: Demanding Skin-in-the-Game vs Involuntary Warranty
Nassim Taleb and I are working on the same problem, which we identified by similar means: designing models. He was inspired when he designed financial risk models, and I was inspired when I designed artificial intelligences for games in anticipation of the kind of warfare we are seeing emerge today. I work bottom up (operationally), and Taleb works top-down (statistically). But this is the same problem from two ends of the spectrum. (He publishes books on the mass market to make money, I build software and companies for a limited number of partners and customers.) I want to find the mechanism and he wants to quantify the effect. But we are looking for the same thing. What is it? Computers are useful in increasing our perceptions. The game of Life is an interesting software experiment in that if you vary the rate (time) you see different patterns emerge. If you vary the scale you see different patterns emerge. But in the end, these patterns, while they appear relatively random at slow (operationally observable) rates, turn out to be highly deterministic at faster ( consequentially observable) rates. And this single experimental game tells us a lot about the human mind’s limits of perception. We see what we can, and the longer we observe the more consequential the patterns are that emerge, and the more deterministic is any system we observe. We have all heard how few behaviors ants have but what kind of complexity emerges from it. During a vacation in southern Oregon one year I observed ducks for a few days as a way of distracting myself from business stress. Ducks are not smart like crows. They have just a few behaviors (intuitions is perhaps a better word). And their apparent complexities emerge from just those few behaviors. But if you watch them long enough you see machines that do about four or five things. And that’s all. So, there is some limit to our perception underneath man’s behavior that is ascertainable: the metrics of human thought. And I would suggestion without reservation that this research program is at least – if more – profoundly important than the research program into the physical structure of the universe. This mathematics is achievable, but we don’t yet know how to go about it. And I am pretty certain that it’s a data collection problem: until we have vastly more data about our selves we probably cannot determine it. (emphasis on probably). We may solve it by analogy with artificial intelligence. Or we may not. I suspect that we will. We will develop a unit of cognition wherein x information is required for every IQ point in order to create a bridge between one substantive network of relations and another. But Taleb and I issue the same warning – although I think I have an institutional solution that can be implemented as formal policy and he has an informative narrative but no solution – as yet. Although his paper last year that shows just how extraordinarily large our information must be once we start getting into outliers. We both use some version of ‘skin in the game’ as a guardianship against wishful thinking and cognitive bias. I use the legal term warranty and he uses the financial street name ‘skin in the game’ But the idea is the same. In Taleb’s case, I think he is more concerned with stupidity and hubris as we have seen in the statistical (non-operational) financialization of our economy. Whereas I am more concerned with deception, as we have seen in the conversion of the social sciences to statistical pseudosciences in every field: psychology, sociology, economics, politics, and (as I have extended the scope of political theory) to group evolutionary strategy. But whether top down or bottom up, statistical or pseudoscientific, skin in the game or warranty, hubris or deceit, the problem remains the same: It is too easy for people in modernity to rely on pseudoscience in order to execute deceptions that cause us to consume every form of capital, from the genetic, to the normative, to the ethical and moral, to the informational (knowledge itself), to the institutional, to built capital, to portable capital, to money, to accounts, to the territorial, and destroying civilization, and in particular the uniqueness of western civilization in the process. So to assert our ( Taleb and I) argument more directly: given that these people have put no skin in the game, and provided no warranty, but that we can impose upon them the warranty against their will for their malfeasance, what form of restitution shall we extract from them? Territorial, physical, institutional, traditional, informational, normative, and genetic? How do we demand restitution for what they have done? How would you balance the accounts plus provide such incentive under rule of law that this would never happen again? As for the Great Wars – all debts are paid. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Taleb vs Doolittle: Demanding Skin-in-the-Game vs Involuntary Warranty
Nassim Taleb and I are working on the same problem, which we identified by similar means: designing models. He was inspired when he designed financial risk models, and I was inspired when I designed artificial intelligences for games in anticipation of the kind of warfare we are seeing emerge today. I work bottom up (operationally), and Taleb works top-down (statistically). But this is the same problem from two ends of the spectrum. (He publishes books on the mass market to make money, I build software and companies for a limited number of partners and customers.) I want to find the mechanism and he wants to quantify the effect. But we are looking for the same thing. What is it? Computers are useful in increasing our perceptions. The game of Life is an interesting software experiment in that if you vary the rate (time) you see different patterns emerge. If you vary the scale you see different patterns emerge. But in the end, these patterns, while they appear relatively random at slow (operationally observable) rates, turn out to be highly deterministic at faster ( consequentially observable) rates. And this single experimental game tells us a lot about the human mind’s limits of perception. We see what we can, and the longer we observe the more consequential the patterns are that emerge, and the more deterministic is any system we observe. We have all heard how few behaviors ants have but what kind of complexity emerges from it. During a vacation in southern Oregon one year I observed ducks for a few days as a way of distracting myself from business stress. Ducks are not smart like crows. They have just a few behaviors (intuitions is perhaps a better word). And their apparent complexities emerge from just those few behaviors. But if you watch them long enough you see machines that do about four or five things. And that’s all. So, there is some limit to our perception underneath man’s behavior that is ascertainable: the metrics of human thought. And I would suggestion without reservation that this research program is at least – if more – profoundly important than the research program into the physical structure of the universe. This mathematics is achievable, but we don’t yet know how to go about it. And I am pretty certain that it’s a data collection problem: until we have vastly more data about our selves we probably cannot determine it. (emphasis on probably). We may solve it by analogy with artificial intelligence. Or we may not. I suspect that we will. We will develop a unit of cognition wherein x information is required for every IQ point in order to create a bridge between one substantive network of relations and another. But Taleb and I issue the same warning – although I think I have an institutional solution that can be implemented as formal policy and he has an informative narrative but no solution – as yet. Although his paper last year that shows just how extraordinarily large our information must be once we start getting into outliers. We both use some version of ‘skin in the game’ as a guardianship against wishful thinking and cognitive bias. I use the legal term warranty and he uses the financial street name ‘skin in the game’ But the idea is the same. In Taleb’s case, I think he is more concerned with stupidity and hubris as we have seen in the statistical (non-operational) financialization of our economy. Whereas I am more concerned with deception, as we have seen in the conversion of the social sciences to statistical pseudosciences in every field: psychology, sociology, economics, politics, and (as I have extended the scope of political theory) to group evolutionary strategy. But whether top down or bottom up, statistical or pseudoscientific, skin in the game or warranty, hubris or deceit, the problem remains the same: It is too easy for people in modernity to rely on pseudoscience in order to execute deceptions that cause us to consume every form of capital, from the genetic, to the normative, to the ethical and moral, to the informational (knowledge itself), to the institutional, to built capital, to portable capital, to money, to accounts, to the territorial, and destroying civilization, and in particular the uniqueness of western civilization in the process. So to assert our ( Taleb and I) argument more directly: given that these people have put no skin in the game, and provided no warranty, but that we can impose upon them the warranty against their will for their malfeasance, what form of restitution shall we extract from them? Territorial, physical, institutional, traditional, informational, normative, and genetic? How do we demand restitution for what they have done? How would you balance the accounts plus provide such incentive under rule of law that this would never happen again? As for the Great Wars – all debts are paid. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
The Correct Answer To “What Are Human Rights”
*(Answers to this question show the tragedy of a late 20th-century education.)*Necessary (Correct) Definitions:Right: a contractual obligation by another party to perform some actions, and refrain from other actions Negative Right: a contractual obligation by another party to refrain from actions: to forgo opportunities for gains. Positive Right: a contractual obligation by another party to perform actions: to bear costs, and to forgo opportunity for ‘defection’ (cheating). Existential Rights: Rights exist only when (a) obtained in contractual exchange, and (b) are enforceable in matters of dispute by a third party ‘insurer’. (throughout most of history the ‘government’ is the insurer of last resort. Rights do not exist then, they must be existentially created by the construction of an insurer (usually government). Desired Right: A right that you wish to possess if you can find (a) a party to exchange it with you and (b) an enforcer (insurer) of those rights once you negotiated them. Hierarchy of Rights: 1. – **Normative** (norms, manners, ethics, morals), 2. – **Contractual: **(from promise to formal document) 3. – **Political Right **(political): …..1. Law proper (discovered), …..2. Legislation (negotiated), …..3. Regulation (commanded) 4. – Human Rights (inter-state): Human rights were an attempt by western nations in the post-colonial and post-war era to set the terms by which governments would respect the sovereignty(esp. borders) of other governments. In other words, it was an attempt to prevent horrors of primitive and developing countries, contain the horrors of communism, constrain expansionist governments, and set the purpose of government to the improvement of the condition of its citizens. 5. – Natural Rights (~scientifically necessary): Those rights necessary for the evolution of voluntary organization of production of goods and services (capitalism) in the absence of parasitism and predation by organizations whether public or private. All natural rights are negative rights, since we can only equally refrain from action, because we are unequally able to act, and unequally can control resources necessary for action. Human rights are necessary rights – those necessary for human freedom from predation – that any government must seek to produce for its citizens (act as a guarantor) if that government wishes to preserve it’s sovereignty from actions against it by those signatories of the contract for human rights: the insurers of last resort. ALL NATURAL (POSSIBLE AND NECESSARY) RIGHTS ARE EXPRESSIBLE AS “RECIPROCATED PROPERTY RIGHTS” All Natural Rights are expressible as property rights that we reciprocally grant one another: rights to non imposition of costs against life, liberty, and property. (Which was the original wording of the US Constitution.) All moral codes are also expressible as property rights, for those actions unknown to affected parties. All ethical codes are expressible as property rights for those actions between parties where knowledge is asymmetrically distributed. The difference between human rights (political) and natural rights (scientific) is that to mollify the communists and obtain their signatures the articles in the 20’s were added that mandated positive rights. These rights cannot be brought into existence without violating all other rights. This is why they do not and cannot exist. The only rights we can grant each other are **negative**, because we can only equally possess the ability to refrain from action. We create (organize) governments in order to create property rights. To create an insurer of our life(existence), liberty(action), and property(inventory) Everything else we say about it is some form of colorful deception. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
The Correct Answer To “What Are Human Rights”
*(Answers to this question show the tragedy of a late 20th-century education.)*Necessary (Correct) Definitions:Right: a contractual obligation by another party to perform some actions, and refrain from other actions Negative Right: a contractual obligation by another party to refrain from actions: to forgo opportunities for gains. Positive Right: a contractual obligation by another party to perform actions: to bear costs, and to forgo opportunity for ‘defection’ (cheating). Existential Rights: Rights exist only when (a) obtained in contractual exchange, and (b) are enforceable in matters of dispute by a third party ‘insurer’. (throughout most of history the ‘government’ is the insurer of last resort. Rights do not exist then, they must be existentially created by the construction of an insurer (usually government). Desired Right: A right that you wish to possess if you can find (a) a party to exchange it with you and (b) an enforcer (insurer) of those rights once you negotiated them. Hierarchy of Rights: 1. – **Normative** (norms, manners, ethics, morals), 2. – **Contractual: **(from promise to formal document) 3. – **Political Right **(political): …..1. Law proper (discovered), …..2. Legislation (negotiated), …..3. Regulation (commanded) 4. – Human Rights (inter-state): Human rights were an attempt by western nations in the post-colonial and post-war era to set the terms by which governments would respect the sovereignty(esp. borders) of other governments. In other words, it was an attempt to prevent horrors of primitive and developing countries, contain the horrors of communism, constrain expansionist governments, and set the purpose of government to the improvement of the condition of its citizens. 5. – Natural Rights (~scientifically necessary): Those rights necessary for the evolution of voluntary organization of production of goods and services (capitalism) in the absence of parasitism and predation by organizations whether public or private. All natural rights are negative rights, since we can only equally refrain from action, because we are unequally able to act, and unequally can control resources necessary for action. Human rights are necessary rights – those necessary for human freedom from predation – that any government must seek to produce for its citizens (act as a guarantor) if that government wishes to preserve it’s sovereignty from actions against it by those signatories of the contract for human rights: the insurers of last resort. ALL NATURAL (POSSIBLE AND NECESSARY) RIGHTS ARE EXPRESSIBLE AS “RECIPROCATED PROPERTY RIGHTS” All Natural Rights are expressible as property rights that we reciprocally grant one another: rights to non imposition of costs against life, liberty, and property. (Which was the original wording of the US Constitution.) All moral codes are also expressible as property rights, for those actions unknown to affected parties. All ethical codes are expressible as property rights for those actions between parties where knowledge is asymmetrically distributed. The difference between human rights (political) and natural rights (scientific) is that to mollify the communists and obtain their signatures the articles in the 20’s were added that mandated positive rights. These rights cannot be brought into existence without violating all other rights. This is why they do not and cannot exist. The only rights we can grant each other are **negative**, because we can only equally possess the ability to refrain from action. We create (organize) governments in order to create property rights. To create an insurer of our life(existence), liberty(action), and property(inventory) Everything else we say about it is some form of colorful deception. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine