fear is not a Weltanschauung

https://zirk.us/@wouldinotcallmyselfahumanbeing

you can call him/one 'welt' for short as he/one acknowledges his/one's handle is long and unwieldy
thinks too much about things as a general rule
has blood-kin on another isnstance
if he/one is not being cool please advise and he/one will attempt modulation

Label: Content
Content: No Content

Public Key

npub1u026ztty3m0ytkpjll70saawds48fk7t5sl3werqjzm7dnl7stvqvf7jlx

NIP-05 Address

wouldinotcallmyselfahumanbeing_at_zirk.us@momostr.pink

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsw84dp94jgahj9mqe0ll8cw7hxc2n5m096g0chv3sfpdlxellg9kqprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0d4hhxarj9ecxjmntqcmfs4

Publishing to

relay.momostr.pink

Author Public Key

npub1u026ztty3m0ytkpjll70saawds48fk7t5sl3werqjzm7dnl7stvqvf7jlx

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-02-25 10:23:17 UTC

- reply

"damn, i was really banking on the perpetrators being a faceless cabal of powerful, shadowy figures. putting the names of all these guys i'm trying to be like one day on my 'to kill when the boogaloo kicks off' list just isn't as satisfying as i thought it would be. I mean, i'd have to put Mark from the golf club on there, he's a great guy!"
@npub1fdr…lvhs

2026-02-09 01:00:14 UTC

- reply

To me, the strongest evidence that exploitative companies outperform democratic ones is the negligible percentage of democratic companies materially extant under capitalism. Maybe democratic companies tend to self-limit in scale as they're unwilling to compromise wellbeing in pursuit of dominance. I suppose we have at least a few thousand years to go before we could say decisively that darwinian capitalism is the ideal form though. [@sz_duras](https://me.dm/@sz_duras )

2026-02-04 02:16:02 UTC

- reply

11. This is why I insist the battleground is ontological, not material. Until we are capable of the paradoxical act of accepting that we are not inherently rational and therefore must consciously use our inherent cognitive tools to actually act rationally, we 're unable to reliably DO human rationality at a cultural scale, only to continue doing primate rationality while imagining that we're BEING rational humans. [@sz_duras](https://me.dm/@sz_duras )

2026-02-04 02:11:49 UTC

- reply

10. are all inevitably destined to be neutralised as potential threats to the meritocracy, merely through existence of the market dynamic. The liberal myth of the rational market is the useful idiocy of our atavism. Homo Sapiens is a middle-sized primate whose unique evolutionary quirk is our inability to distinguish our imagination from our reality - a quirk that enables pattern recognition, conceptual communication, shared belief systems, judgement, bias, xenophobia etc etc. [@sz_duras](https://me.dm/@sz_duras )

2026-02-04 02:08:40 UTC

- reply

9. necessary process by which the meritocrats fittest to be ogligarch, monopolist etc. naturally self-select. Of course, unlike the truly lassiez-faire iprocess of evolution, the fittest in market darwinism can then meta-compete through lobbying, courts, government relations etc to ensure the environment is hostile to copmetition rendering unnecessary, while insisting that doing so is the only way competition can be safeguarded. In this way, the market, court and government... [@sz_duras](https://me.dm/@sz_duras )

2026-02-04 02:01:06 UTC

- reply

8. Hence why companies kept in check by workplace democracy are inevitably out-competed by less scrupulous companies, why consumers accept ever higher prices and ever worse services because shopping around has been made impossible. The market environment is inherently hostile to competition because it is *inefficient*. Ogligarchy, monopoly and exploitation persist because they are the *most efficient* ways to produce scarcity. Competition is merely the regrettably [@sz_duras](https://me.dm/@sz_duras )

2026-02-04 01:59:09 UTC

- reply

7. There is no incentive for a rationally self-interested agent to accept a mutually beneficial transaction when the opportunity for a unilaterally beneficial transaction exists.Far more rational to self-interestedly create scarcity by withholding your property from the market, and exploiting your surplus equity by waiting until the scarcity forces your desperate 'equals' to accept whatever exploitative terms you dictate. [@sz_duras](https://me.dm/@sz_duras )

2026-02-04 01:58:11 UTC

- reply

6. ...and that controls can ensure profit isn't completely monopolised without too chilling an effect on individuals' right to be self-interested, meaning self-interested individuals should ideally be able to acquire as much equity as they can purchase, YMMV according to one's intrinsic merit. Both these are wrong. The function of the market is to produce *scarcity*. Mutually beneficial transactions exist only in a barter economy. Capitalism is darwinism with pockets. [@sz_duras](https://me.dm/@sz_duras )

2026-02-04 01:56:25 UTC

- reply

5. The classical liberal holds that the market's function is to produce equity (a painful but meaningful pun - the liberal myth is that through the mechanism of facilitating the individual possession of value through ownership (equity), the by-product of every transaction is an invisible force bringing us all into mutually free harmony (equity) because we are agents of rational self-interest . The more cynical liberal allows that the market's function is to produce profit... [@sz_duras](https://me.dm/@sz_duras )

2026-02-04 01:55:33 UTC

- reply

4. The mythical "mutually beneficial transaction"—that concept interests me greatly. You'll probably find it unsurprising by now that i have an uncharitably critical lens to apply here too, and it very much speaks to the reason I think even ostensibly anti-capitalist liberalism fails and in doing so reinforces exploitation capitalism. It comes down to the fundamental liberal misunderstanding of the nature of the market. [@sz_duras](https://me.dm/@sz_duras )

2026-02-04 01:53:48 UTC

- reply

3. ...logical argument against capitalism provide any tangible outcome. Our potential allies are already convinced, and the status-quo majority are unable to be convinced because their position is emotional belief rather than logical conviction. [@sz_duras](https://me.dm/@sz_duras )

2026-02-04 01:50:06 UTC

- reply

2. I interact with more people who are mentally anticapitalist but trapped in capitalist realism than I do people who are pro-capitalist solely based on logically reasoned philosophical positions. Honestly though, I see more people who are subconsciously invested in capitalism due to our atavistic fear of precarity who engage in post-hoc rationalization than I do either of those, and in neither the trapped anticapitalist or the deluded pro-capitalist scenario does a robust... [@sz_duras](https://me.dm/@sz_duras )

2026-02-04 01:48:49 UTC

- reply

1. We might agree to disagree on the necessity of "proof of wrongness". I think that's part of my issue with Ellerman. The failure of Nozick's libertarian defence is irrelevant to its aim. It provides a stalking horse for the regressivist project of hate-and-fear-based exploitation, pretending it's logically justifiable institution merely by appearing to mount a logical argument. Engaging with the argument even to rebut it for laypeople reifies it as a rational belief. [@sz_duras](https://me.dm/@sz_duras )

2026-02-02 22:07:00 UTC

- reply

There's a lot of meat in there I'd love to gnaw at but it will be a long response because I'm ineluctably verbose. I know the post format doesn't lend itself well to long-form writing, and also that we could probably go back and forth interminably, so if at any point it's becoming a chore to wade through, let me know and i'll leave you in peace.
Also [@sz_duras](https://me.dm/@sz_duras ) if you haven't muted the thread already and you'd like to be left off the replies, sing out!

2026-01-25 11:47:15 UTC

- reply

Also, this seems a good point to say thank you for this conversation, i'm enjoying it immensely. You're a robust and considered correspondent, and i apologise if my tendency to hyperbolic polemic is frustrating. I am impatient with us as a species. we are capable if better. [@sz_duras](https://mastodon.online/@sz_duras )

2026-01-25 11:43:50 UTC

- reply

as for centrism's capitalism dependency, you'll likely think it an unfair characterisation, but to me centrist support on utilitarian grounds falls into the 'mistaken/propaganda' category, and centrist support based on the rights of the individual is darwinian, a moral justification for "every man for himself" predation. [@sz_duras](https://mastodon.online/@sz_duras )

2026-01-25 11:41:17 UTC

- reply

... ethics and fair management practices are an obstacle in delivering the lowest price to the consumer, the maximum revenue to the shareholder. In theory monopolies are inefficient, irrational, impossible and doomed to failure. In practice they are incredibly profitable and commercially unassailable which is why monopoly is the endgame of every sufficiently large company. The liberal explanations of this inevitably amount to "true capitalism has never been tried". [@sz_duras](https://mastodon.online/@sz_duras )

2026-01-25 11:34:43 UTC

- reply

... *as theories, where i do not, will not divorce the theory from the practice. in practice is where theory fails. In theory, competition between firms doesn't necessitate competition between individuals. Unless *in practice* you want to be a high-performing firm, in which case you foster an internally competitive environments to ensure your employees work optimally. In theory competing firms force each other to do a good job. in practice, they race to the bottom because ...
[@sz_duras](https://mastodon.online/@sz_duras )

2026-01-25 11:32:09 UTC

- reply

ok, here goes: Those who are mistaken or hoodwinked don't have the capacity to meaningfully defend or advocate for capitalism regardles of the faith in which they operate, only perform it. I invoked 'logical arguments' - the like of Nozick, Hayek, any who litigate the superlativity of capitalism as a theory in the face of the evidence that is capitalism in practice. This is why i think you feel like i'm straw-manning; you cite reasonable defences of capitalism, liberalism ... [@sz_duras](https://mastodon.online/@sz_duras )

2026-01-25 06:55:05 UTC

- reply

you're welcome to that opinion. I'll continue shortly, life interrupts, i hope for yourvpatience! [@sz_duras](https://mastodon.online/@sz_duras )

2026-01-25 06:25:21 UTC

- reply

justification of capitalism can only be done in bad faith. it has no good-faith justification. It serves only as a method to launder darwinian survival with the sheen of meritocracy. The universally shared "right" to attempt to out-compete one's fellow organisms in a shared resource environment is not a rational economic system, unless one grants that bacteria are liberals.
Being able to describe the nature of the opposion in order to understand and counter it is one thing, [@sz_duras](https://mastodon.online/@sz_duras )

2026-01-24 22:50:42 UTC

- reply

there are no good-faith pro capitalists. Potential anti-capitalists are not people who simply just haven't been logic-and-reasoned out of capitalism yet. It already *feels* wrong to them, and they need tactics. They don't need to learn about "workplace democracy", they just need to join a union. The only people entertaining logical arguments against capitalism are motivated reasoners who are running down the clock. [@sz_duras](https://mastodon.online/@sz_duras )

2026-01-24 22:37:31 UTC

- reply

Ellerman's inalienability fails in that it accepts the *underpinnings* of the capitalist justufication prima facie, accepts the assertion that slavery is a contract by which an individual sells their agency. and attempts to rebut by pointing out that agency is non-tranferrable and therefore can't be sold. The capitalist justificattion is in bad faith. The enslaver is under no illusion that they have purchased the slave's agency under contract. [@sz_duras](https://mastodon.online/@sz_duras )

2026-01-23 00:12:18 UTC

- reply

other scale belongs to the invisible hand, any attempt that does not aim to dismantle the hand or the scale serves as an endorsement thereof. [@sz_duras](https://mastodon.online/@sz_duras )

2026-01-23 00:09:19 UTC

- reply

I have the same contention with "we hold these truths to be self-evident". The composition of "we" is conveniently left undefined.
Admittedly the definition of terms could be endless, which is why i brook you that "workplace democracy" to its credit aims to do more good than harm, but essentially our dispute is one of terms, specifically "anti-capitalist liberalism". Ellerman attempts to put the thumb of the worker on the scales of capitalism, but while the thumb on the... [@sz_duras](https://mastodon.online/@sz_duras )

2026-01-23 00:00:50 UTC

- reply

their material absence of their essence. More specifically to our discussion, and to an earlier point, no, i'd argue inalienable rights by definition cannot be violated. That's what inalienable means. Their constant, consistent alienation is a compelling argument against their inalienability. I underatand the argument to the fact that they *ought* to be enshrined, but arguing that we currently posess them is magical thinking.
[@sz_duras](https://mastodon.online/@sz_duras )

2026-01-22 23:44:09 UTC

- reply

What? All idealisms seem to me to be equally ok or not ok, in that they are ideals, and that is their beginning and end. What I am litigating is the belief of I (in the universal sense), the ideal-holder, that *mine* is the only ideal upon which society should be constructed.
I, personally, am still in the construction phase of any kind of ideal i might hold. It's evident that the essentiality of the principles of every ideal i've come across is falsified by the conspicuous...
[@sz_duras](https://mastodon.online/@sz_duras )

2026-01-21 01:50:51 UTC

- reply

i see. so, liberal in that it still enshrines property rights necessitating the free market and reifying capital concentration, "postcapitalist" in that it additionally enshrines inalienable rights which trump property rights, and doesn't entirely preclude collectivism or economic controls. Hmm. The intentions behind it are good but characterising it as anti-capitalist is a stretch. Seems at most capitalist-reformist liberalism.
[@sz_duras](https://me.dm/@sz_duras )

2026-01-20 23:46:24 UTC

- reply

demands for some form of worker-collective ownership of production, but implemented in such a way as to avoid as much as possible destabilising the capitalist legal institution of incorporation. [@sz_duras](https://me.dm/@sz_duras )

2026-01-20 23:44:18 UTC

- reply

I'm still skeptical of 'anti-capitalist liberalism' as a concept. Capital is the fundamental unit of liberalism, the first and best lever a liberal has: as i understand it, the liberal principle of equality is guaranteed by protecting individual autonomy (within the social contract), through enshrining the right to private property. Property rights are alienable and have value, and alienable value is capital.
Ellerman's 'workplace democracy' to me seems a sop to further left... [@sz_duras](https://me.dm/@sz_duras )

2026-01-19 11:29:06 UTC

- reply

yes. even at their most ideal, liberal principles inevitably deem 'the free market' the most rational and suitable vehicle to cultivate the 'inalienable right' of equality. the market, no matter how ostensibly free, is capital made manifest.

2025-06-05 05:02:19 UTC

- reply

boo hiss, my imaginary free ship is much preferable to the terrible reality @npub1z3l…txvc @npub14pv…zkwp @npub13fh…p4vt

2025-06-05 04:25:54 UTC

- reply

it'd have to be in pretty bad nick for me to say no if it's free
(full disclosure, my interest in acquiring distressed container-carrier is mostly facetious, as much as I would truly love a whole ship-carcass to play with, had i somewhere to store it) @npub14pv…zkwp @npub13fh…p4vt @npub1kyd…jltj

2025-06-05 04:18:46 UTC

- reply

but the ship itself is probably still good, right? Anyone got a relay team of tug boats and a couple of days to round-robin tow this sucker to Australia? If it's abandoned I say it's flotsam, or at least derelict - finders keepers! @npub14pv…zkwp @npub13fh…p4vt @npub1kyd…jltj

2025-05-12 08:43:39 UTC

fediverse, is there a denominational label for 'ostensibly christian who believes in old testament of bible but is ambivalent about the new'? Just absolutely fascinated by the "jesus is too woke" discourse in fringe American ultraconservative religion.
#theology #philosophy #christianity

2025-05-10 17:48:07 UTC

- reply

I don't think Hollywood tropes are a suitable information framework upon which to advance serious opinions about international relations.

2025-05-10 17:45:18 UTC

- reply

hollywood's distortions of reality for dramatic narrative effect are irrelevant to actual reality. I'm afraid I can't see how putting nefariously ensuring the information he received was inaccurate benefits him. i dont think either "noble russian staffer stops ww3 by deftly softening sabre-rattling rhetoric" or "incompetent Russian staffer causes ww3 by flubbing their one job" are headlines it benefits him to manufacture.

2025-05-10 17:24:50 UTC

- reply

so the idea is putin gets to say "your terms are shit" and have his translator say "your terms are unsatisfactory"? because he likes the idea of getting away with being ruder to the envoy than the envoy realises?

2025-05-10 17:10:31 UTC

- reply

so I don't understand. is putin's evil plan in this situation to let the US envoy give their terms and then have his evil translator instead tell him "they said pee pee poo poo"? or does putin say what he wants to tell the envoy and have his evil translator tell the envoy "he said pee pee poo poo"?

2025-01-04 11:09:44 UTC

the reason the supremacist insists his superiority is inherent is because then it is not something he is required to prove. He fears what would happen should he be forced to try.
The nihilist, the self-professed alpha male clings with superstitious credulity to his belief in superiority as his birthright, for the dread that he could achieve superiority through no other means.
#philosophy #patriarchy #masculinity #nihilism

2024-12-25 03:27:10 UTC

- reply

wronk link for the post, should be https://theconversation.com/the-moral-dimension-to-americas-flawed-health-care-system-245971
@npub1uqy…kvhk

2024-11-05 08:16:44 UTC

Does the difference between The Left and The Right boil down to criticism of or uncritical belief in an external authority by virtue of whom you are entitled to every windfall of happenstance, being that it is rightful fruit of the *labour of uncritical belief itself*?
#politics #philosophy

2024-08-27 03:17:41 UTC

I don't understand why watermarking AI content was an idea that had to come from outside the AI community, as a harm minimization control. Surely AI-gen content should be watermarked for AI companies' own benefit? For a company that backs its own product, content users generate with its services should be the front line of their advertising strategy. Let your success do the talking.
#ai #generativeAI #marketing