Nostr Web Client

Replying to twofish

nostr:nevent1qqsggpaaqy2xmu8edu5kkgr6ljugphjums74cucctkal8s5xy4sjyaspz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygpamfzspzsrj8tex0s6ulxrhpztlkgujtw7l584tnn2l5p9wahjmvpsgqqqqqqsnd3cqp

Jordan S 10mo ago

It's a joke, I give individuals benefits of the doubt but in-group preferences exist because it's a survival instinct.

And I know with Humans it's different because we have souls, or consciousness, etc.

Most of my friends are hispanic males like me, not because I chose people like that but because they're the people who relate to me the easiest.

I get along with people of different races but I would say my inner circle are people most similar to me in every aspect.

https://video.nostr.build/033e01d542f173def3a228507ee639ebfab54a69a0bf5ef92f1936555b2cf1c1.mp4

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

twofish 10mo ago

This video contains at least one logical fallacy.

The logical fallacy of false comparison, also known as false analogy, occurs when two subjects are compared based on irrelevant or superficial similarities while ignoring significant differences. This fallacy can lead to misleading conclusions because it suggests that because two things are alike in one way, they must be alike in other ways as well.

For example, if someone argues that "employees are like prisoners because both have to follow rules," they are making a false comparison. While both groups may have rules to follow, the context, implications, and nature of those rules are vastly different.

In essence, a false comparison undermines the validity of an argument by drawing parallels that do not hold up under scrutiny.

Jordan S 10mo ago

In a way a race, or nation is an extension of the family, and while this can be extrapolated to the entire human species, it's fair to say that borders exist because it's where two distinct enough groups agree their region, or territory ends.

Whether or not borders are right, justified, or should exist is up to debate but I think even in a natural libertarian order people would chose who they associate with.

individuals would want to affiliate with beneficial individuals, and disassociate from unbeneficial individuals.

twofish 10mo ago

Family/Neighborhood/Local community: Socialist/Socialist Ideal, e.g. Social credit system, oxytocin based, Dunbar limits apply

Town/City: Liberal

County-State: Conservative-Libertarian

Federal-Global: Anarchy

Property rights take precedence, except in extreme examples within the social ideal scale where the right to optionality can take precedence.

That means NO taxes, no borders, no federal rulers.

At least this could be a stepping stone to complete anarchism.

Kevin's Bacon 10mo ago

Not sure I understand what you're saying. Your main point is not very clear.

twofish 10mo ago

Basically the larger the group the more anarchy it gets and smaller the group the more socialist it gets, ideally.

Kevin's Bacon 10mo ago

Ew fuck that lol!

twofish 10mo ago

Is your family not a form of socialism?

Kevin's Bacon 10mo ago

It's 100% capitalist. We respect consent. Economic planning is more collaborative because of our closeness and ability to coordinate, but the property rights and the individualism are intact and inviolable. I protect myself from the transgressions of every individual. That includes the weakness and entitlement of a family member. No one should tolerate any shit, even from their closest relative.

twofish 10mo ago

So you don't teach your children to share with each other?

Kevin's Bacon 10mo ago

Fuck no. Just had a discussion with my gf about how fucked up that is.

twofish 10mo ago

Jordan Peterson claims that it doesn't matter how good you are at playing the game if nobody wants to play with you.

Side note, I do like game theory based conflict resolution:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_choose

Kevin's Bacon 10mo ago

If they want to play, they will learn to play in a way that people will want to play with them. It doesn't need to be forced, because they will want that social interaction, and they will, if they are anything like me, value the other person's happiness too.

Divide and choose, very interesting. This sounds like a specific application of Coasian side bargaining, or of the homesteading principle wherein equal claims are granted, or the original acquisition is in dispute, or the acquisition is contractually agreed in advance to be determined by this method. Game theory offers truly wonderful insights into specific problems in matters of libertarian property rights and utilitarian questions, with immense wealth even in what little bit I am aware of.

Kevin's Bacon 10mo ago

We may be talking past each other. It sounds very much like you are considering the central and cohesive planning, bonding, culture, and strategizing of smaller familial units, while I am speaking to the necessary freedom and independent thought upon which the ability to plan at all lies, even at the family level. Subtle distinctions must be made clear for that all to work. Otherwise, all you get is entitlement, weakness, dysfunction, pettiness, destruction.

twofish 10mo ago

The problem is we are always dealing with shared resources despite property rights. Kids too loud? Exert some sort of force to keep them quite. Everything they 'own' was given to them, etc. It's a tragedy of the commons issue where socialism emerges as tit for tat that allows for mistakes play out. I think capitalism turns into crowny capitalism when dealing with shared resources unless some sort of conflict resolution protocol is used. But you are 100% right that if you get out of the way, tit for tat will emerge in a capitalistic environment.

Kevin's Bacon 10mo ago

Tragedy of the commons happens when property rights are not clear. So one must make them clear to the children. You don't force them to share, you force them to conform to not hurting others or messing up their property, if needed. All else is education and freedom. You as a parent probably own the house. So you are kind of like a monarch, except you don't tax the child. You govern the rules of the house, but you let the kid learn how to truly respect himself and his fellows.

Diacone Frost 10mo ago

I kinda do force them to share candy. Because otherwise theirs teeth would rot 😂

twofish 10mo ago

I agree that 99.99999% of problems are effortlessly solved with property rights IF they are clearly defined. The edge cases are absurd and never play out when property rights are enforced in real life.

twofish 10mo ago

So the monarchy vs tit for that that allows for mistakes that emerge into a socialist structure tradeoff is measured by this: (I love that term 'cost of anarchy' BTW)

The "cost of anarchy" in mechanism design refers to the inefficiency that arises in a system when individuals act in their own self-interest rather than cooperating for a collective good. It is often quantified in terms of the difference between the social welfare achieved under a centralized, optimal mechanism and the social welfare achieved under a decentralized mechanism where agents act independently.

In more formal terms, the cost of anarchy is typically defined as the ratio of the worst-case social welfare (or utility) achieved by a Nash equilibrium of a game to the optimal social welfare that could be achieved with a centrally designed mechanism. This concept is particularly relevant in the context of game theory and economics, where it highlights the potential inefficiencies that can arise in competitive environments.

Mathematically, if \( SW^* \) is the optimal social welfare and \( SW_{NE} \) is the social welfare at a Nash equilibrium, the cost of anarchy (CoA) can be expressed as:

\text{Cost of Anarchy} = \frac{SW_{NE}}{SW^*}

A CoA greater than 1 indicates that the decentralized outcome is less efficient than the optimal outcome, emphasizing the potential losses due to individualistic behavior in the absence of coordination or regulation. Understanding the cost of anarchy helps in designing mechanisms that can mitigate these inefficiencies, such as through incentives or regulations that align individual interests with social welfare.

twofish 10mo ago

My description outlines a unique political and social framework that blends elements of socialism, liberalism, conservatism, and anarchism, with a focus on community dynamics and property rights. Here’s a breakdown of the key components:

1. **Family/Neighborhood/Local Community: Socialist/Socialist Ideal**:

- Emphasizes community support and social credit systems, which could involve mutual aid and resource sharing.

- The mention of oxytocin suggests a focus on social bonding and trust within smaller groups, promoting cooperation and empathy.

- Dunbar's number, which posits a cognitive limit to the number of stable social relationships one can maintain, implies that social structures should be manageable and intimate.

2. **Town/City: Liberal**:

- A liberal approach at the town or city level may prioritize individual freedoms, civil rights, and a market economy, while still allowing for some community-oriented initiatives.

3. **County-State: Conservative-Libertarian**:

- This level may emphasize personal responsibility, limited government intervention, and strong property rights, aligning with libertarian principles.

4. **Federal-Global: Anarchy**:

- Advocating for anarchy at the federal or global level suggests a rejection of centralized authority and governance, promoting self-governance and voluntary associations instead.

5. **Property Rights and Optionality**:

- The framework prioritizes property rights, but allows for exceptions in cases where community needs or social ideals take precedence. This could mean that in certain situations, the collective good may override individual property claims, particularly in extreme cases.

6. **Gradation of Governance**:

- The idea that governance becomes more anarchic as the group size increases reflects a belief in localized decision-making and autonomy, with larger entities being less structured and more fluid.

This model presents a perspective on how different governance structures can coexist and interact at various levels of society, emphasizing the importance of community and individual rights while advocating for minimal centralized control. It raises questions about how to balance these ideals in practice, particularly in terms of conflict resolution, resource distribution, and maintaining social cohesion.

Kevin's Bacon 10mo ago

It makes sense overall, but I am a bit stricter about emplacing a distinction between laws and mere social pressures and enforceable contracts which coordinate people in a more planned or tightnit fashion.