Category Archives: property

Updated Axis of Human rights 3.0

 

Here is the non-political axis version 3.0.  Changes include:

  • Preferred rights are grouped as they typically are by left/right in Hegelian Dialectics.
  • Areas of likely waste are greyed out toward anarchy.  (sources include commons tragedy, foreign states, natural disaster)   Waste (top) and corruption (bottom) are often conflated in political debate.
  • Capitalism’s center is now marked for illustrative purposes.  It is always between liberty and metrics, and freedom and investment.  If it’s somewhere else, it’s something else.

I’ve included simplified chart with some data from the USA in the year 1800.  It illustrates what can and can’t change over time with these charts.   Notice

  • Capitalism’s center has moved.
  • All but one right has been shifted.
  • Left and right have been removed since this was a concept with later origins.

 

Some other observations comparing the two.

  • In both cases justice ends up adjacent to friendship.  They both share the function of curating the conscience of others, but mainly differ in intensity and scope.
  • In both cases freedom and investment are adjacent.  This is interesting because they intersect at capitalism.    Will explore what happens if they become oppositional.
  • Justice, currency and property are easier to define (perhaps not completely) than other rights.  Perhaps that’s why they assume the role of oppositional identity?

Update: 2021-03-14: Updated both graphs to version 3.2.  Classic MacGuffin and clearer URL added.

Origin of human rights

While usually difficult to view, the collective conscience is civilizations shield.

How behavioral pairs work

Both human intelligence, and civilization is in critical part created by behaviors.  Behaviors that are unique to humans who are not psychopaths, and all animals as they are, in the natural world.  These behaviors are not simply very fast rational thought.  “I think therefore I am” is inadequate.

This can be seen by comparing unique human behaviors to their closest animal kingdom counterpart.  This comparison provides another critical service.  A science based foundation for human rights.   Beginning with the most basic building block of society, the sovereign self.

Self Sovereignty – Behaviors unique to humans in nature,  following a path least intrusive to other humans, forms civilization.

CORE RIGHTS

The conscience is comprised of emotional metadata which is a fast risk engine that has emergent behavioral properties. Humans display testable (falsifiable) behaviors, that form a subconscious wisdom of future good, not expressed by other animals (or psychopaths)

Property – Identity of an place, object, or accomplishment belonging to a being or a group. Honored and understood as a provision of autonomy to a distant time.
Territory – Control of a place, object, or role by a being or group. Enforced by violence. Revoked by absence.

Currency – A convenient object or idea, representing and interchangeable with property or caloric expenditure, held with expectation of said returns upon exchange.
Favour – A treaty, a yield of territory to display deference to hierarchy.

Freedom – A cooperative model of non interference. The perpetual expectation of non-interference in exchange for a return of the same.
Treaty – A stalemate, a mutual temporary cessation of conflict to avoid over exertion.

Friendship – The expectation of continued freedom between parties, despite periodic violation of it, for the purpose of communicating risk subconsciously in diminished samples of harm.
Alliance – A temporary teamwork towards and depending on a common goal. Restricted to roles.

Investment – Dedication of time and calories into a being’s or a groups creative development. Requires property and currency to realize return.
Assignment – Dedication of time and calories into another’s territory with the expectation of favour.

Justice – Revocation of the rights of someone who curtails the rights of others, for a time reflecting the loss. A corrective act to shape societies conscience, to lower the risk of loss of rights.
Fairness – Enforcement of equal outcomes for individual by role. Enforced by violence. Revoked by absence.

Insight – Subconscious messaging describing super-sense attributes not previously connected. Instantaneous like instinct, but presenting novel information, so selection pressure or experience can’t program them directly. Emergent.
Instinct – Instantaneous recall of appropriate action to reach/avoid emotional primitives (despair, bliss, and will to action). Based in direct or genetic experience.

.
Civilization – An organization including insight, property, freedom, friendship, investment, currency and justice. Characterized by trust. Allowing investment (manufacture, farming, storage, trade), and subsequently specialization, and it’s side effect, economy of scale.
Pack – An organization based on instinct, territory, treaty, alliance, favour and fairness. Structured by assignment of roles. Role based equality(fairness). Transient.

DEDUCTIVE RIGHTS

Faith; Knowing something you can’t prove: Insight, Freedom
Ignorance; Reacting to something you don’t know: Instinct, Treaty

Money; Liquid property: Currency, property
Debt; Mobile territory: Favour, territory

Specialization: Investment, freedom, insight
Compliance: Assignment, treaty, instinct

Markets: Freedom, property, currency
Subsidies: Treaty, territory, favour

Free speech: Friendship, currency, justice
Directives: Alliance, favour, fairness

Sexual preference: Freedom, property(of self)
Provisional autonomy: Treaty, territory

Innocent until proven guilty: Freedom, friendship, justice
Continuity: Treaty, alliance, fairness.

Right to exit; Moving away from oppression: Justice, Investment, Freedom
Banishment; Rejection from hierarchy: Fairness, Assignment, Treaty

Right to fork; Creation of new competing hierarchies: Property, Investment, Freedom
Deposal/Regicide; Temporary ascension to top of existing hierarchy: Territory, Assignment, Treaty

Religion: Faith, investment, property(of self)
Cult: Ignorance, assignment, territory

Beneficence; Serving human rights: Freedom, Justice, Friendship
Utilitarianism; Appearing good: Treaty, Fairness, Alliance

INDUCTIVE RIGHTS

Threats in absence or conflict(waste) of core human rights. Threats include commons tragedy, foreign states, natural disaster.  These threats present a danger to civilization and other rights.

Self defense: Property, currency, freedom, friendship, investment, justice
Fitness; (natural selection): Packs enforce their fairness, territory, favour, assignment, treaty, and alliance, through violence

Economy of scale: Investment, markets, faith
Stagnation: Assignment, subsidies, instinct

Privacy: Property, currency, freedom, investment
Narrative: Territory, favour, treaty, assignment

 

This version 2.  See ‘Behavioral pairs‘ for it’s origin and version 1.

Update v2.1:  Unpacked conflation of ‘The right to fork’ and ‘the right to exit’   More accurate.

Axis of Human rights v2.0

Creating a framework for further social commentary on both tyranny, and human rights collisions.  A firm foundation to identify misuse of language to further tyrannical ends.

Landscape of economy of scale (the primary benefit of aligns with traditional centrist positions leaning toward Individualism.

Notice that left vs right are completely non-informational at this level of detail.  Claims of left or right tyranny in this language set are disingenuous at best.

Update 2/26/21: Understanding ideas graphically allow new ideas emerge.   I now know that focusing on what rights a law grants instead of what rights a law takes is corrupt and authoritarian.  A short path to a psychopathic government.

Update 2/26/21: Added ‘Bolster Prejudice’

Update 2/27/21:  Version 2.2 Annotated all sections with likely examples.

Update 2/27/21: It quickly becomes clear why Nationalism (a form of tribalism) is so revered.  It’s is a bellwether for the slide into Authoritarianism.  When it is no longer tolerated, the Overton window has moved toward tyranny.  BTW ALL authoritarian regimes pay homage to these levels of rights, even if they actively block citizen choice.  Try flying unofficial flags for your nation for example.

Update 2/28/21:  Version 2.3:  Been getting great feedback and that in turn is leading to my own ideas.  It seems left vs right is at it’s core a liberty level dispute over which natural human right is more important, property or currency.

The death of facts

trusted

 

Them’s the facts jack. Facts are facts. Or are they. Fact checkers love to write their own checks, but who checks them? Other fact checkers? That’s a tangled web, and at any scale sovereignty, and then authority, begins with you. As always the most important question isn’t who, but how. How we determine what the facts are, determines the quality of our reactions.

Many people care about facts as weapons. A way to zing their enemies. The repugnant selfish theater better known as politics. They don’t contemplate broader risks. Absurdities enable atrocities. The fields of facts are filled with Pyrrhic victories. Battles won at cost of humanity’s common war against risk. The truth and the broad shield it provides us is damaged. What does truth shield us from? Many interim horrors, but ultimately, mistakes we can not come back from.

Inherently, there can be no greater risk than irreconcilable error, should facts go awry. All risk ends there. Facts are important, possibly the most important to a shared social system. The only thing that can correct irreconcilable error is externalities. Waiting for some black swan to save you is inherent failure. Not because saviors don’t exist, but because you learn nothing and therefore accomplish nothing if you strictly wait for them. Trying and failing to understand still often makes progress. You need to act even if the facts do not favor action.

Unknown unknowns

How do you act without or in the face of apparent facts? The temptation may be to vette the facts further. It seems like a positive action, and it could be. But as the earliest politician showed, fact finding can become a fool’s errand. If your premise, or other contributing facts are flawed your result will be skewed, possibly multiplicatively. A trace of poison can ruin the whole water supply. Finding facts objectively, at a glance, seems improbable.

There are a few structures by which to find facts. Only in rationalism can facts be found objectively through strictly logical constructs. Empirical evidence depends to a degree on perspective, and attributes and quality of the senses. A rubber ruler at best. Skepticism can never create a test it can pass, because it’s nature is to doubt everything, including the test itself. You can’t create a useful system of rules, you inherently can’t trust. Determinism can indicate there are immutable facts, but you can’t measure inevitability, only likelihoods approaching inevitability. It may be true, but we can’t measure it completely, so we can’t create a fact with it. So rationalism it is.

Determinism while maddening can be useful. There are no determinists. There are only people who think determinism is the most likely explanation for events and attributes, by a very wide margin. They can’t know every quantum outcome at the sub-atomic level that create the molecules in their brain cells, they can only imagine the parts at that scale working together on an impossible to simulate universal scale. It’s too big for simulation or calculation. Which reveals our final opponent to rationalism, pragmatism.

While many people treat facts as deterministic, they can be, and are pragmatic.  What actually performs and gets good results?  Based in an incalculable world, all things deterministic are in fact an odds game and actually pragmatic. This presents a problem for rationalism. Scope. Just like determinism can only approach the probability that it is true, rationalism can only approach the totality of relevant facts. It may, and mathematically will, miss facts. But don’t just take my word for it, rationalism died with the renaissance man. Once humanities best minds determined the entirety of human knowledge is not knowable to any one person  more than a century ago, it follows that nobody can have or even honestly claim to have, all the facts. The concept of incontrovertible facts died, when the scope of human knowledge exceeded one very smart person.

As this is Civgene, I can’t help but present a second argument. The real way I knew to look for the death of facts. I know all the most intelligent human behavior is partly driven by rationalizing subconscious impulse. Our conscience, indicated by our lack of psychopathy, is a probability engine. Churning out likely answers to puzzles by comparing unlike things in our memories and nudging us. We then in turn rationalize or externally explain these insights. Reason without conscionable  impulse is just rationalism, and that psychopathic fashion of seeking truth is, incomplete at best.

Known unknowns

So we know facts can be false, and can’t be proven completely true, but we have to act. What to do? We should use facts, but we should encourage competing facts. How can they compete? By shrinking the scope of society so that sets of competing facts can play out. Experiments when possible, but predictions when not, can scientifically vette facts. It is healthier to act, than to simply wait for a system of incorrect facts to grow large enough to induce a catastrophic failure. By letting people choose their own results, you prevent moral hazard to truth, or disintegration of the idea of objective truth. Whether it’s distortions originate from gaslighting or subtle errors, top down facts chip away at the viability of approaching objective truth.

An idea oriented fact finding process should be encouraged, not a blame based one. Since all people with imagination have ideas, consensus facts should be shared. Consensus is when the vast majority of people see a fact as true, not only people whom you agree with. Some ideas may conflict. To progress materially or spiritually, you may need to limit the scope of people who are considered for your consensus. People outside this technocracy’s scope should not be considered when achieving a local consensus, but also should not be indoctrinated by the technocracy. Attempting to achieve broader consensus through ideas can expand your scope, but if blame encourages a faux consensus, it damages the viability of objective truth. Smashing anyone, much less your political enemies, in the face with truths they can’t understand hurts the viability of future consensus, and creates castes or classes, the quick road to oppression, oligarchy, and massive inefficiency.

Again as this is Civgene, I must point out civgene had predicted this. Behavioral pairs (consionable humans compared to the animal kingdom) indicate that human rights originate from the differences between humans and all (possibly most) other animals and psychopaths. Primarily adding a time component, future, present, and past to current animal social structures. Property, investment, freedom, friendship, currency and their derivatives, money, markets, specialization, and economy of scale all indicate a right to fork. Allowing hierarchies, like oligarchy and technocracy to interfere with these rights, denies people the opportunity to act naturally human, and benefit maximally from it. Faulty (or false) facts compete with and even eliminate these behaviors. Bringing us closer to psychopathic simple animal behaviors as cumulative distortions grow.

Known knowns

If faced with opponents to your facts, approach them with ideas of process for resolution (ideally scientific), or don’t approach them at all. If a fact is rejected, the blame lay with the explainers understanding of the fact, not the challenger. Many things can be, and have been wrong with specialized and local consensus facts. Deception or defection for power or political gain, scope errors or missing information, empirical errors, or simply low intelligence actors may have forced superficial consensus before a broader population could be brought in through understanding. The highest orders of industry, government, science, and other hierarchies have been disastrously wrong about facts for centuries, before. Destroying public trust. Pushing a fact you can’t explain can have subversive results on our very ability to agree on anything, and possibly our health and safety. An obscure fact is safer for the social fabric than a profound distortion. An obeyed dictate, posing as fact, is possible, but comes at difficult to reverse cost. Destruction of trust.

Much good has been done by small groups of technocrats using a common base of facts to discover new truths. Find like minds. Mankind’s greatest discoveries languished for decades in obscurity, even when in common use, or while enjoying tremendous financial success. All based on facts that still to this day do not share a public consensus. Who, what, when, why, and especially how, can all be wildly changed by the tiniest change in the underlying facts. The truth does not suffer from a lack of attention. Only you do. You can not conquer this problem alone, so seek like minds to build on your facts and compare your performance to other societies technocrats, with different assumptions, I mean ‘facts.’ The public mind is a contest of ideas, and the only sure way lose it is to attack the contest itself.

Alliancism

choice

There is a problem with political progress today.  There is no word but fascism to describe a  change of government into a system of always putting subsidies for corporate profit ahead of freedoms, markets, or property, controlled by one person.  A trivial point, an oligarchy as the fascist is possible here too.  While the properties of fascism appear on a regular but limited basis, it’s absolute properties (absolute control) may not be present.  The transition can take place at any speed.  Freedoms can be lost for temporary profit, one freedom at a time.

Alliancism to fascism is much like socialism to communism.   In small doses both can have good short term consequences, but only for a temporary period of time.  Bringing in fractional banking in where there was none before, but cannibalizing the money supply to do it.  Growing economy of scale by ending trade disputes via hard power and eroding citizen rights to reach that goal.  Masking the tragedy of the commons with consumerism and gentrification.  Incrementally replacing debate with marketing, public relations and ultimately propaganda.   Replacing war with police action (conquest by peace).   Meant as a staged scale like socialism, alliancism is a partial implementation of fascism in a capitalist democracy (including republics) as it transitions between the optimal psychopathic cooperative (rights AND shortcuts) to rapid simplification and localization.  Ultimately, collapse.

I’m naming it after the alliance.  The closest relationship a person without a conscience (a psychopath) can have to a friendship.  Temporary and transitory in nature alliances can only exist while at each party thinks they are using the other to their ultimate advantage.  Where fascism immediately assumes all rights to it’s leader class, alliancism can erode rights one at a time.  Cashing in freedoms for temporary pricing advantages via market distortions.   This continues until the faith in currency and property are lost, and trust and investment ceases.

Who is in contol? Banking vs new technology

banking-vs-technology-v3

Thank you for your feedback an patience! Perhaps these new images will shed some light on how pack vs social topologies effect human economic behavior.

Here are the individual images, but they loose something without the dimension of time.  Just click on them for detail.

Inherent-technology-all-behaviors-fiat Inherent-technology-unique-behaviors-fiat Inherent-technology-common-behaviors-fiat

 

Feedback is welcome.  Thank you for your help!

Edit v.2 :  minor repairs.
Edit v.3 :  After some consideration realized fiat is a substitute for coinage.  The animation helped with perspective..

Note:  I have deleted the earliest post and version of this graph.  Not trying to be revisionist, it’s all up on github, but this graphic is so much more clear cut and understandable.

 

What is happening to the global economy?

Econ-tech-subsitute-v2

Psychopaths are exerting disproportional influence on the economy.  Some empaths have been captured  either by cult or by  political ideologies, becoming temporary proto-psychopaths.  This  leads to collapse, and a  rout of genetic psychopaths.   A brutal but effective means to reversion to a trust and metamind based economy.

We broke that mechanism when we split the atom.  If we let that happen again, the nuclear power plants could melt down, as they will fail disaster not fail safe when their daily mechanizations are no longer attended by knowing employees.  Perhaps this was by design as part of MAD, but it’s guillotine hanging over the planets head now.

Green loosely matches the Adam Smith model.  As we approach the red psychopathic supplements for trust behaviours, (substituting debt for money for example) we approach the dystopia Marx and Engels observed but lacked to data to understand.   Just in time, open source has demonstrated the vital importance of the right to fork.   If we support that right through systemic changes we can back away from the edge of the cliffs of collapse.

Discuss this with your families this Thanksgiving and perhaps we can make a change for the better.  Please share your ideas and comments.

EDIT: I left this post up for completeness but there is a newer superior 3d graph.

 

How does legal distribution work?

Legal distribution is the right to veto laws passed by representatives by popular vote, not by abolition, but by moving a law to next smallest legal jurisdiction.  The distribution (federal United States of America for example) means 50 copies of the law are made (one for each state) and the funding is divided 50 ways as designated by percentage by the original bill.  Now each state can change and adapt the law to suit their needs and the funding stream is secure.  Even in the case of state abolition funding flow is guaranteed unless the original now distributed law is abolished by lawmakers at the federal level.

This can be undertaken at any scale and be reduced down to the next smallest jurisdiction.  Including the sovereign individual.

A legal distribution would trump all contracts with the state.  Contracted works would have to be rebid by each distributee.  Contracts with individuals would be exempt as no jurisdiction can be lower than a single sovereign individual.

This attacks centrists, power seekers, and the corrupt would be oligarchs who would raid the treasury without the people.  It discourages secret deals in lawmaking by greatly increasing the risks as works bribed in secret can no longer be delivered reliably.

It suits the goals of 3 of the 4 sectors on the political compass including the majority of republicans and democrat populations (only the statists suffer)

It addresses the problems of the inevitable collapse of government due to growing corruption, corporate lawmaking outrunning civic players, lack of market data in government regulation (state level competition), it solves scapegoat populism driven by propaganda, and if proven as fact it solves growing psychopath populations hijacking the political process to destruction for short term personal gain.

It is based on the human right to fork, which derives from the inherent human rights (property, currency, freedom, friendship, and investment), which form civilization and from which markets derive.  In this it is a direct antidote to the form of propaganda known as the Hegelian dialectic, by always offering a third choice (bad, less bad, localities compete to produce better data) in civic decision making.

It appears superficially socialist, but is actually is a localist antidote to socialism’s observed inequity and graft.  It respects and preserves the hard the hard won balance of rights and common good of distributed laws, but returns the power to oversee that law to a smaller more manageable scale.

The reduction of waste and the restored economy of scale should make voluntary type one civilization participation significantly more feasible.  The right to veto means unexpected corruption in global agreements can be rapidly retracted, and reworked in a competitive fashion and in time a new law can be passed with the data resulting from variation of the distributed competing implementations.

This does not solve the tragedy of the commons directly but instead solves the problem that causes it, aversion to corruption.  The risk of unexpected (to the population of citizens) consequences is near negligible as laws with purposely or unintentionally hidden results can quickly be revoked.  In other words the risk that state defectors will do more damage than defectors at large.  Power as an end to itself is far less feasible at any scale.

Legal distribution should be compatible with any government type like republic, monarchy, technocracy, communism, etc.  Two notable exceptions are theocracy or anarchy.