We don’t use the Truth to convince you. You are immoral, dishonest, dysgenic and lack the agency to use the Truth. We use the Truth to convince ourselves, who are moral, honest, eugenic, and possess of agency, that it is right, just and moral, to separate from you – and if not, then conquer, kill, enslave, en-serf, and subjugate you in self defense – not only of ourselves, but of all we have made, and the future of mankind yet unmade.
Theme: Truth
-
“it is a basic belief of aristocrats that base peoples are liars. “We who are tr
—“it is a basic belief of aristocrats that base peoples are liars. “We who are truthful” – that is what the nobility of ancient Greece called themselves.”— Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, p154
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-22 01:02:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1032070347728859137
-
“it is a basic belief of aristocrats that base peoples are liars. “We who are tr
—“it is a basic belief of aristocrats that base peoples are liars. “We who are truthful” – that is what the nobility of ancient Greece called themselves.”— Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, p154
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-21 21:01:00 UTC
-
Literature, Science, and Law –versus– Mythology, Theology, and Philosophy
Literature, Science, and Law
–versus–
Mythology, Theology, and Philosophy
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-21 17:17:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1031953440757506050
-
Literature, Science, and Law –versus– Mythology, Theology, and Philosophy
Literature, Science, and Law
–versus–
Mythology, Theology, and Philosophy
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-21 13:17:00 UTC
-
To: Adam Voight So what is the difference between philosophy(your work) and law
To: Adam Voight
So what is the difference between philosophy(your work) and law (my work) other than uncertain advice (philosophy) and certain decidability(Law)? Or between both an Science: “the process of due diligence”.
====
by Adam Voight
The common thread running through moral and religious diversity is the purpose: cooperation through language. All else is accidental.
For example, slavery is a moral system. There are universal rules that apply to all humans qua humans: rules that determine who is counted as a slave and who is free. Slave owners all are duty bound to reciprocate the defense of other’s property by returning escaped slaves.
The only reason slavery is wrong is that there is a better way of doing things> Slave-based societies cannot compete with modern free societies.
In Marx’s words: slavery is a system of relations of production that correspond to an obsolete stage in the developement of the means of production. This is the “materialist” view of morality, and in this sense both Marx and I are materialists.
This is the argument running through my whole work. My only innovation is to replace marx’s anthropolgy with its evolutionary equivalent and to augment the latter with Aristotle.
https://adamvoight.wordpress.com/
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-21 13:04:00 UTC
-
Natural Law vs Social Construct
by John Mark “Xyz is a social construct” carries no testable content. What they mean to say is “Human groups don’t actually need xyz to be successful. People have told us we need xyz but we would be better off without it.” Insert “legislation” or “rule of law based on natural law of reciprocity” for “xyz” and we have a testable statement. As far as I know, rule of law based on natural law of reciprocity with full accounting (of all forms of property) can and would adapt to social conditions – meaning that regardless of what actions people are taking in a polity, such a system of law would provide legal recourse and restitution for individuals or groups who experienced others violating reciprocity in dealings with them.
-
Natural Law vs Social Construct
by John Mark “Xyz is a social construct” carries no testable content. What they mean to say is “Human groups don’t actually need xyz to be successful. People have told us we need xyz but we would be better off without it.” Insert “legislation” or “rule of law based on natural law of reciprocity” for “xyz” and we have a testable statement. As far as I know, rule of law based on natural law of reciprocity with full accounting (of all forms of property) can and would adapt to social conditions – meaning that regardless of what actions people are taking in a polity, such a system of law would provide legal recourse and restitution for individuals or groups who experienced others violating reciprocity in dealings with them.
-
The Problem with Opposition to Propertarianism
The progress of our understanding from optimism and ignorance to pessimism and certainty.
|Evolution| Social Democracy -> Classical liberalism -> Libertarianism -> Anarcho Capitalism -> Neo-Reaction -> Propertarianism -> Fascism The problem with Propertarianism for other groups is that it’s law not literature, and as law it is unforgiving (intolerant) of falsehood, pretenses of knowledge or goodness whereas almost every other method of argument makes use of pretenses of truth, knowledge, and good in order to achieve an end that does NOT require truth, knowledge, and reciprocity. Why? Because we rally around (politically and socially) discounts that are obtained by use of falsehoods, pretenses, and irreciprocity. So the question is always and everywhere, why one would pursue one’s ends (power) by means of discounting using falsehood, pretense, and irreciprocity (fraud), rather than pursue them honestly and restitutionally (restitution) by violence, or honestly and predatorily (predation) by violence – other than (a) one has no chance of achieving other by coercion or violence. In other words, why pursue a failure other than to avoid action in pursuit of a success? All we ask in propertarianism is to impose reciprocity by violence as a means of restitution.
-
The Problem with Opposition to Propertarianism
The progress of our understanding from optimism and ignorance to pessimism and certainty.
|Evolution| Social Democracy -> Classical liberalism -> Libertarianism -> Anarcho Capitalism -> Neo-Reaction -> Propertarianism -> Fascism The problem with Propertarianism for other groups is that it’s law not literature, and as law it is unforgiving (intolerant) of falsehood, pretenses of knowledge or goodness whereas almost every other method of argument makes use of pretenses of truth, knowledge, and good in order to achieve an end that does NOT require truth, knowledge, and reciprocity. Why? Because we rally around (politically and socially) discounts that are obtained by use of falsehoods, pretenses, and irreciprocity. So the question is always and everywhere, why one would pursue one’s ends (power) by means of discounting using falsehood, pretense, and irreciprocity (fraud), rather than pursue them honestly and restitutionally (restitution) by violence, or honestly and predatorily (predation) by violence – other than (a) one has no chance of achieving other by coercion or violence. In other words, why pursue a failure other than to avoid action in pursuit of a success? All we ask in propertarianism is to impose reciprocity by violence as a means of restitution.