Darwinian competition among small states only lets you compare their local effectiveness, when the question is how they affect the world.
-
-
Replying to @MemberOfSpecies
@MemberOfSpecies Why is that "the question"? Is globalism the substitute axiom for moral universalism?4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MemberOfSpecies
@MemberOfSpecies If entropy dissipation is 'success' (surely yes), then it tends very strongly to be an intrinsically localized phenomenon.1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @UF_blog
@MemberOfSpecies Universalist utility evaluation might seem intuitively fair, but the only radical realization of 'fairness' is heat-death.6 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @MemberOfSpecies
@MemberOfSpecies It's not quite that because "a politics helping the average person" is essentially hallucinatory. You get communism instead4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MemberOfSpecies
@MemberOfSpecies The key point I think you might still be missing: Fragmentation is the SUBSTITUTE for universalist argumentation.1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @UF_blog
@MemberOfSpecies "How do we make a good universalist case for fragmentation" is getting it wrong (and will always fail, because entropy).3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
-
-
Replying to @MemberOfSpecies
@MemberOfSpecies If the enemy suffers or dies it's undesirable? No one thinks that, unless anomalous religious fanatics.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @UF_blog
@MemberOfSpecies "The universe is bad because animals eat each other" -- there are actually people who think such thoughts have some value.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.