Monthly Archives: March 2021

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.

The game

 

One night my conscience challenged my rational mind, to a dual. The only way it could, in a dream. I did not realize this was the source of the dream until well into the game.

The game began with simple rules.

‘Empaths'(non-psychopaths) were to be tested. The object of the game was to demonstrate that ‘the conscience’ was too fragile to be a primary force in the real world. That the coherence of society was just momentum. The momentum of complex multi generational knowledge transfer.

It was set in an abandoned building surrounded with clearing and then wilderness.

The rules were as follows.

  1. The empaths had to be, and act like, children. In other word the quality or power of their emotional quotient (EQ) was the only factor for their internal morality. They were under developed and had little or no experience dealing with terror, starvation, and lack of other base needs. Kids were around age eight to ten.
  2. The empaths had no resources. (food, water, rest) All resources had to be taken from other empaths.
  3. I would be the only adult empath. The only fully developed conscience in the entire game.
  4. There were many children, at least eight.
  5. There would be rational actors. Enforcers, and one young adult talker, my counterpart. The talkers role was to explain the rules to the children and myself, and call enforcers if the rules weren’t followed. He clearly wanted to win. He spoke aggressively and struck fear in all.
  6. I could not physically interfere. I had enough talent to fight and beat the enforcers (numerous and robotic in reaction, with some exploitable handicaps), but not with a panicked child in tow. I could only convince the children, I couldn’t drag them.
  7. Two children were ordered to kill each other each night. The winner was then paired up with another child the next night.
  8.  I had once resource. A plant grew that would restore my health for one day but make me hallucinate 10% of the time. Cumulative. It was fatal poison to children.
  9.  I had to save more than one child to win.

I won on the second night.

How many children died?

One. The first two children were selected and threatened by the talker. I used every trick I knew to convince the first child(let’s call him Angel) not to fight, but terror of the unknown convinced Angel he had to kill to survive as directed.

I convinced his first designated victim/opponent (Charles for simplicity) not to fight. Charles did not subconsciously understand the problem, or had exclusively positive experiences with adults, and trusted me. This was done in earshot of Angel. Once Once Charles’s commitment to non-violence and escape was obvious Angel acted. While being egged on by the talker, Angel killed Charles with a provided sword.

I was distraught. I had failed to save the second child. The first had done something terrible. Angel ate and slept, and I wept.

I ate some plant to retain my strength of mind. The hallucinations reinforced my sense of urgency.

When he woke, I continued to try and convince Angel he was was wrong after the first death and failed. The other children, who were in earshot, became convinced that he couldn’t be swayed. His commitment to death was now an unstoppable force. Without speaking, they signaled to me as a group. Intuitively, I knew they had decided to flee.

I distracted Angel as the children gathered by an exit. Then we fled as one, without angel. They followed me to safety as I fought the enforcers off of them successfully. They couldn’t explain why they made this choice. I didn’t expect them to make it. It was not discussed. It was made by their conscience without my direct programming (as parents do).

The contest ended so Angel was released and survived, with terrible emotional damage.

The challenge had ended. What was demonstrated. Emapthy is superior against risk to the rational mind. But only with negative examples.

What can this dream, turned thought experiment, teach us? Protect freedom of speech. Neither force, nor experience could save even one child, but they could save themselves. If their consciences were exposed to the whole brutal truth, they knew the path to safety. Only the truth can protect us from those who would pit us against each other.

Video intro to Civgene

CIvgene can be complex and confusing, but if you’ve got an hour, I lay out the basics in a simple way.   Good way to get started.

 

Corruption of the invisible hand

Recently I shared an older animated graphic on social media, demonstrating how animal kingdom psychopathic work alike behaviors which seem similar to empathy based behaviors will crush economic growth.  Link to article follows.

Got a great response roughly saying, ‘This invalidates Adam Smith’s invisible hand.  It can’t be valid.’  Simple but substantive retort, and an awesome opportunity.  My response as follows.

 

Countries and economies collapse! Even the United States founders knew this, hence the second amendment. They just didn’t know why. They only had symptoms.

Smith formulated the invisible hand on the idea that errors(mistakes) were the primary negative effect on markets, not defectors (aka:sabotage). Hence it only applies to non-defectors.

Defectors, driven by growing populations of differently behaved psychopaths, use variations on moral hazard to game people’s consciences against them to set up rewards for bad behavior as pointless consumption gigs for themselves. Bounties(we call them subsidies) for ghosts. People invest in garbage because their market data is intentionally garbage. Calls to authorities to gatekeep information (to control quality and distribution) are erected with graft in mind. The intent to fund a loss leader with an artificially boosted outcome to enslave the consumer to a fabricated risk model, be it capital, information, or any behavior that does not comply with the top down authority that must pervade a psychopaths life.

For example Smith is naive on foreign actors interfering in other countries public schooling (an important topic for him), a regular practice even among allies, for at least 100 years. No fault, but no accommodation. Contrast that with moral sentiments. Describing empathy and it’s human specific behaviors. Like most (all?) great thinkers before 1970 psychopathic defectors are just not on his mind.

Again he does describe grift, but as an error.   Not a way to reorganize, game, intentionally topple or otherwise distort a capitalist system.  It is not discussed as a tactical or strategic way to wage war.  Most importantly for my understanding of the cause of collapse, intelligent actors without any empathy are never considered.  Much less breeding more quickly than those with empathy, or being magnetically attracted to the centers of power and public trust.

Few people understand inflation as taxation or the potential logarithmic supernation sized gains from economy of scale on a planet with billions of consumers. These ideas and others are used against them. Further psychopaths as science are only 50 years old. Smith could not have known these things without seeing his creation in action.  His massive enhancement to economic science was observation based, but in whole he described a largely new system with it’s own new properties.

Psychopaths operating in growing quantities, in Smith’s system, are externatlities to his time, age and data set.

 

If this interests you you may enjoy my critique of Marx from the same time period.  Smith is discussed as well.

 

 

Collectivism isn’t a thing.

(Collectivism is the ENTIRE chart)

Collectivism isn’t a thing.  Not how people talk about it anyway.  Mises and Nietzsche both saw collectivism as a weak euphemism for the authoritarian tar pit that it is.  They didn’t know about psychopaths, and therefore they couldn’t know about core human rights, which lays bare the false dilemma.  But they strongly hinted collectivism was a null type (at the discussed scale) from the start.

The reality is individualism vs collectivism is a false dilemma.  Conflation of an archetype and one of it’s sub-types.   Human organizational conflicts over how much of which human rights play out largely as individualism vs authoritarianism.  Collectivism just means human interaction.   It’s the terrain in which authoritarianism and individualism influence human decisions and their outcomes.   Which is at best, trying to compare climate with a specific snowstorm.   Of course the snowstorm is part of climate, everything touching air on earth is.