[O]bjective Morality consists of prohibitions on the impositions of costs upon others that would provide a disincentive for cooperation. We produce many norms that we treat as morality, just as we produce political commands that we treat as law. But norms are not necessarily moral, and legislation is rarely law. We also conflate heroism with morality. Which despite being two sides of the same coin, are opposites. Heroism consists in contributing to the commons. Morality in not privatizing the commons (parasitism). So an artist can be heroic or not, and an artist can be moral or not. He can be heroic and moral. He can be moral but not heroic. It is quite hard to be heroic and immoral. They tend to cancel each other out. So if an artist is not living parasitically, is producing art that is not immoral, and attempting to contribute to the commons, he is moral and heroic.
Theme: Responsibility
-
Q: Curt: Is The Occupation of Artist a Moral One?
[O]bjective Morality consists of prohibitions on the impositions of costs upon others that would provide a disincentive for cooperation. We produce many norms that we treat as morality, just as we produce political commands that we treat as law. But norms are not necessarily moral, and legislation is rarely law. We also conflate heroism with morality. Which despite being two sides of the same coin, are opposites. Heroism consists in contributing to the commons. Morality in not privatizing the commons (parasitism). So an artist can be heroic or not, and an artist can be moral or not. He can be heroic and moral. He can be moral but not heroic. It is quite hard to be heroic and immoral. They tend to cancel each other out. So if an artist is not living parasitically, is producing art that is not immoral, and attempting to contribute to the commons, he is moral and heroic.
-
TRUE VS MORAL Debating whether something is true or not, is very different from
TRUE VS MORAL
Debating whether something is true or not, is very different from debating whether it is moral or not. We too often allow our culture’s framing of discourse as truth, to be used as a vehicle for advocating immorality.
This is why the ‘others’ cannot debate me. I will not fall into the question of whether something is true or not. We can rarely know if answers to great questions are true or not.
We can however know whether the answers to great questions are moral or not.
They are immoral. We are not.
MORAL AND ETHICAL:
Productive
Fully informed
Warrantied
Voluntary Transfer
Limited to externality of the same.
TRUTHFUL TESTIMONY
Warranties of Due Diligence:
– categorical consistency (non-conflation)
– Internal consistency (logical)
– external correspondence (empirical consistency)
– existential consistency (operational definitions)
– full accounting ( against selection bias )
– parsimony and limits ( precision )
– morality – ( natural law of cooperation) consisting of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities of the same criteria.)
Because having performed these due diligences, it is extremely difficult to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, loading-framing-overloading-suggestion, and deceit.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-04 13:36:00 UTC
-
Cunning improves one’s ability and incentive to steal. Morality improves one’s a
Cunning improves one’s ability and incentive to steal. Morality improves one’s ability and incentive to refrain from stealing.
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-01 17:34:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/694212134855647234
Reply addressees: @Outsideness
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/693864701483024384
IN REPLY TO:
@Outsideness
That the average insane degenerate communist progressive is smarter than the average Twitter rightist is, sadly, simply a fact. …
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/693864701483024384
-
We Agree to Grant Women Equal Rights to Property…
[W]e agree, with the provisions… ***”We agree to grant you equal rights in matters of property under the provision that you limit reproduction to kin, and create no moral hazard by bearing offspring that the rest of us must pay to raise and insure. Why? Because it is not necessary to grant you equal rights in any matter. It is merely beneficial for all of us if we do. But this benefit cannot come at the cost of our kin. Or it is of no benefit at all.”*** (there we go) I’ve been framing a counter argument for feminists equal to ‘why don’t I kill you’ as a basis for cooperation. This quote as the same argumentative starting point.
-
We Agree to Grant Women Equal Rights to Property…
[W]e agree, with the provisions… ***”We agree to grant you equal rights in matters of property under the provision that you limit reproduction to kin, and create no moral hazard by bearing offspring that the rest of us must pay to raise and insure. Why? Because it is not necessary to grant you equal rights in any matter. It is merely beneficial for all of us if we do. But this benefit cannot come at the cost of our kin. Or it is of no benefit at all.”*** (there we go) I’ve been framing a counter argument for feminists equal to ‘why don’t I kill you’ as a basis for cooperation. This quote as the same argumentative starting point.
-
***”We agree to grant you equal rights in matters of property under the provisio
***”We agree to grant you equal rights in matters of property under the provision that you limit reproduction to kin, and create no moral hazard by bearing offspring that the rest of us must pay to raise and insure. Why? Because it is not necessary to grant you equal rights in any matter. It is merely beneficial for all of us if we do. But this benefit cannot come at the cost of our kin. Or it is of no benefit at all.”***
(there we go)
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-31 14:10:00 UTC
-
Q&A: How Does Propertarianism Address Spanking?
[A]s an economy. “The Cost Is In The Maintenance” Testimonialism tells us that “There exist no general rules without limits”. So to say we should never spank or always do something else, is an ‘immature’ or perhaps ‘unsophisticated’ ethic. Lets look at the four properties. FIVE FACTORS 0) the category of violation: violence(physicality), crime(theft), ethics(deceit), manners(impulsivity), morals(externality), (please note the sequence). 1) time preference (long term consequences), 2) knowledge of alternatives, 3) time demands (urgent threat vs raising calmest child), 4) exhaustion and frustration levels of the parent. I suspect that merely mentioning these properties is enough for you to put it together. It’s not very complicated. DISCUSSION 1) whenever possible choose the long term consequences. The long term consequences are that harming( using violence against) your children for any reason produces long term consequences. There are times when children know they are out of line. I am not a prohibitionist. There must exist some limit. Physicality should be a limit, not a practice. Thats what the research shows and I am convinced by it. 2) it is actually just as effective in most cases to deprive a child of attention and stimulation. This is the preferred method today – in no small part because we have big enough houses. As I understand it the beneficial line of demarcation is physicality. Cursing at mother (mother must be sacred), or using physicality warrants physicality. Everything else warrants deprivation rather than physicality. Why? Because punishment gives the child attention, and your anger means he or she ‘wins’ by controlling you. In other words, if your child wants attention and can get it, then he is punishing you for not paying him enough attention. After physicality, the next standard is lying. I think most of the time lying is impulsive, and if impulsive then deprivation is enough. After lying s Premeditation. Premeditation is a very bad sign in a child (impulsivity requires only training). Premeditation is not quite as bad as killing animals, but a danger sign. Harming others or animals through premeditation means you have a candidate serial killer on your hands. This requires professional help. So if we are trying to train children to have higher time preference (escape impulsivity) then this is a matter for deprivation. If we are trying to train children out of impulsive physicality – then calm retaliation is probably warranted. If we are trying to train children out of premeditation – then it is more than a question of spanking, it is one of diagnosis of what is ‘wrong’ that is causing it. My mother used to make me stand in a corner. I merely spoke to my daughter and that was enough to change her behavior We sent my son to his bedroom. I have spanked my son once, but it did no good. I usually use a tap on the bottom and that is all it takes. But we are a gene pool and there are other gene pools. My father was excessively violent and I fucking hated him for it. Mostly because it was unnecessary. Making my mother unhappy with me was punishment enough. 3) Deprivation requires time. Contrary to popular belief, children sort of just came along through most of our history, are fairly fragile until they are seven or eight, and were exposed (killed) if unwanted, and often killed by nature if insufficiently provided and cared for. (history is full of families the majority of whose children did not survive). 4) Deprivation requires patience, and energy. Frustrated and tired parenting is very difficult. How one punishes is one of the best measures of time preference. But one’s capacity for time preference is determined by exhaustion and frustration. So people with good mental and physical condition, and who have long (low) time preference tend to be better parents than those with poor mental and physical condition, and high(short) time preference. CLOSING This is the ‘economy’ of child rearing. A child is not purchased and held as lumber or bricks, but constantly maintained like an orchard. So the cost is in the maintenance, not in the purchase. wink emoticon Cheers Curt
-
Q&A: How Does Propertarianism Address Spanking?
[A]s an economy. “The Cost Is In The Maintenance” Testimonialism tells us that “There exist no general rules without limits”. So to say we should never spank or always do something else, is an ‘immature’ or perhaps ‘unsophisticated’ ethic. Lets look at the four properties. FIVE FACTORS 0) the category of violation: violence(physicality), crime(theft), ethics(deceit), manners(impulsivity), morals(externality), (please note the sequence). 1) time preference (long term consequences), 2) knowledge of alternatives, 3) time demands (urgent threat vs raising calmest child), 4) exhaustion and frustration levels of the parent. I suspect that merely mentioning these properties is enough for you to put it together. It’s not very complicated. DISCUSSION 1) whenever possible choose the long term consequences. The long term consequences are that harming( using violence against) your children for any reason produces long term consequences. There are times when children know they are out of line. I am not a prohibitionist. There must exist some limit. Physicality should be a limit, not a practice. Thats what the research shows and I am convinced by it. 2) it is actually just as effective in most cases to deprive a child of attention and stimulation. This is the preferred method today – in no small part because we have big enough houses. As I understand it the beneficial line of demarcation is physicality. Cursing at mother (mother must be sacred), or using physicality warrants physicality. Everything else warrants deprivation rather than physicality. Why? Because punishment gives the child attention, and your anger means he or she ‘wins’ by controlling you. In other words, if your child wants attention and can get it, then he is punishing you for not paying him enough attention. After physicality, the next standard is lying. I think most of the time lying is impulsive, and if impulsive then deprivation is enough. After lying s Premeditation. Premeditation is a very bad sign in a child (impulsivity requires only training). Premeditation is not quite as bad as killing animals, but a danger sign. Harming others or animals through premeditation means you have a candidate serial killer on your hands. This requires professional help. So if we are trying to train children to have higher time preference (escape impulsivity) then this is a matter for deprivation. If we are trying to train children out of impulsive physicality – then calm retaliation is probably warranted. If we are trying to train children out of premeditation – then it is more than a question of spanking, it is one of diagnosis of what is ‘wrong’ that is causing it. My mother used to make me stand in a corner. I merely spoke to my daughter and that was enough to change her behavior We sent my son to his bedroom. I have spanked my son once, but it did no good. I usually use a tap on the bottom and that is all it takes. But we are a gene pool and there are other gene pools. My father was excessively violent and I fucking hated him for it. Mostly because it was unnecessary. Making my mother unhappy with me was punishment enough. 3) Deprivation requires time. Contrary to popular belief, children sort of just came along through most of our history, are fairly fragile until they are seven or eight, and were exposed (killed) if unwanted, and often killed by nature if insufficiently provided and cared for. (history is full of families the majority of whose children did not survive). 4) Deprivation requires patience, and energy. Frustrated and tired parenting is very difficult. How one punishes is one of the best measures of time preference. But one’s capacity for time preference is determined by exhaustion and frustration. So people with good mental and physical condition, and who have long (low) time preference tend to be better parents than those with poor mental and physical condition, and high(short) time preference. CLOSING This is the ‘economy’ of child rearing. A child is not purchased and held as lumber or bricks, but constantly maintained like an orchard. So the cost is in the maintenance, not in the purchase. wink emoticon Cheers Curt
-
Q&A: WHAT DOES PROPERTARIANISM SAY ABOUT PEDOPHILIA? (example of contrasting pro
Q&A: WHAT DOES PROPERTARIANISM SAY ABOUT PEDOPHILIA?
(example of contrasting propertarian analysis with psychological analysis)
At the risk of entering into a field of landmines:
As far as I know, pedophilia is a developmental disorder, that like homosexuality, psychopathy, and hoarding, is incurable.
It has a high comorbidity with other (serious) mental illnesses. I suspect that the researchers will determine that it is caused by the excitement of the dominance response in those who have mental disorders that prevent experience of the dominance response.
In other words, pedophiles can only get excited by something they can feel dominant over, and they are basically unable to feel dominance (sexual excitement) otherwise – at least as intensely.
While it is understandable to be aroused by beautiful teenagers(fertility). It is not however, understandable to be aroused by children(non-fertile). Even if we say that the taboo is a learned response, obsession sufficient to prevent disassociation by experience of a constant normative taboo, requires mental illness to prevent that association.
I have only known one pedophile tangentially (someone fairly senior ex-Microsoft), and there is something ‘not right’ about these people. This individual is highly passive aggressive, with the jewish paranoia that is common in that tribe, and has various other obsessive disorders – that just happen to be useful in writing software.
They invoke my disgust and purity responses severely enough that I intuit the desperate need to kill them. (I am a a conservative libertarian after all, with heightened responses to such things.). I have the same reaction to child abuses, and wife-beaters.
In my work I tend to rely on the ternary set of emotions: Dominance-submission, excitement-calm, pleasure-pain.
And on the desire to acquire in all things without an cancelling loss. So I must be able to explain a behavior using these limited ‘operations’.
So in my view pedophilia must be a defect since the ‘behavioral economy’ produces such incentives against it, since the interests are against it, and there is no acquisitive value in the behavior whatsoever.
In other words, using the rough math of propertarianism, I can’t find a way for this to result in an acquisition. This is the value of propertarianism over empathic psychologism: one cannot so easily be fooled by cognitive biases.
If this sounds like a diagnosis lacking in empathy, it is. But the universe is pretty mechanical. We feel things because they correspond with the demands of the universe. We humans are expressions of physical laws. We aren’t all that special. We just have memories that we can use to predict and therefore outwit the universe’s ‘slower’ and deterministic method of progress through time. (and we are victim of faster processes).
Curt
( PS: I had not included a chapter on negatives in my book. This question suggest that I should include a few such examples. So John Black thank you for giving me one to work with. )
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-27 02:57:00 UTC