Saturday, May 28, 2016

moral inversions, fair markets, and absolute morality

Moral transformations refer to reframing propositions in a better moral light in order for them to be more morally palatable, though fundamentally providing the same/similar enough advantages.  Moral inversions is a process where morally unpalatable objectives and outcomes are pursued using moral transformations.   A moral inversion is a moral justification for (likely intentional) evil.  These topics should be the main focus of philosophy and moralism.  Though we can identify what is moral vs immoral, its relatively irrelevant to do compared to the easy process for corrupting  those identities to suit empowered wills.

Fair markets
Adam Smith's justification of free markets was entirely and explicitly dependent on fair markets:  equality of bargaining power and perfect information and competition.  Basic income is one promising policy to equalize bargaining power in the labour market.  Though markets are primarily thought of as transactional arrangements, they also apply to games, such as elections determining power, and fair markets is a subset of fair gaming systems.

I propose that fair markets are a more ideal and permanent solution to market/game corruption than is changing who benefits from the game corruption.  For example socialism vs capitalism is a war where the winner reaps the gains from a corrupt favouring game.

If I propose to kill and eat you for profit
You will raise 3 moral objections to the proposal:  I should not kill you.  I should not eat you, and doing so for profit is definitely not an exemption for the previous 2 moral imperatives.  An audience hearing your moral objections would be inclined to agree with you, and either through sympathetic rage against my evil, or merely to ensure a fair game where they are not subject to similar victimization, may seek to prevent or punish my proposal.

To pursue my goals of eating and profit I need to morally invert your losses through moral/situational transformations that will at least intellectually confuse the audience you need to make your moral case to.  For instance if a harsh systemic and natural balance kills you, and pigs eat you, then I may eat the pig with no moral (vegetarianism aside) objection to my actions.  Exploiting your desperation for my profit can be done with moral "blamelessness"/detachment if I have no visible hand in causing your desperation.  If state sanctioned moral authorities (usually the state itself) have not previously denounced profiting from your desperation in the manner that I can, then your audience is unlikely to be moved to your defense, and my media puppets may drown out your voice and confuse enough of the audience to side with me.

But who will pick the cotton
was a primary concern, and anti-abolitionist argument.  Abolition of slavery was a moral transformation:  An appeasement of liberal moral qualms, while fundamentally permitting the same profit/cotton opportunities, labour market exploitation independent of slavery, and perpetuating african american sub-equality.

A moral transformation is a solution to keeping the world the same while manufacturing a liberal headline.

If voting could change anything they'd make it illegal
Democracy was the minimalist moral transformation necessary to appease violent liberal rebellion.  Democracy is relatively recent mid 19th century development in Europe that stemmed from  a contagion of rebellions.  But a process to elect kings does not eliminate power and control.  It merely requires a slight sharing of power among aligned interests and those easily bought.

The key takeaway is that governance does not seek to maximize game fairness, and instead offers itself as a tool for moral inversions.  Individual moral inversion opportunities seem to trump fairness ambitions primarily because there is a win opportunity through moral inversion that will escape attention by the losers, and innattentive audience.

Even principled defense of fairness actions do not stop constant attack on them.  Abortion, Net neutrality, and 40 acres and a mule all received constant attack.  The latter was undone almost everywhere within 2 years.  Net neutrality has similar deep moneyed backers, and abortion is just vote bait, but vote bait is the main force upholding net neutrality.

What makes morality focus unhelpful
Winners from corrupt markets will call the markets free, and the outcome just and deserved, while losers will call the winners assholes.  The entirety of political discourse is about siding with and against assholes.

The fear of not doing the same thing tommorow
If you promised coal workers that for 10 future generations, they will be forced underground to risk collapse accidents and lung disease while contributing to the destruction of the planet and air environment, they would be very happy with the proposed income security.

Any change no matter how systemically/socially beneficial will disrupt someone's life in the short term, and create reluctance and resistance.

linguistics: fuckface
The ends justify what comes out of your fuckface to justify the ends. is moral inversions and transformations.

Fuckface politics is constituency advocacy dressed up as social progress or efficiency instead of the latter.

I'm unable to determine if fuckfaces are stupid or dishonestly resistant and evil, but these concepts do not seem that complicated, and the latter is presumed for public figures.  Stupidity would disqualify them from public influence as much as should evil.

Absolute social morality
is necessary to prevent moral inversions and transformations as a tool for political and economic power.  Either tyranny and slavery are absolutely bad, or they are something we say is bad while accepting as close a system to these as possible without rebellion.  Without absolute social morality standards, minds are too weak to prevent moral inversions that perpetuate or increase slavery and tyranny.

 These are sufficiently short, simple and clear for a court to strictly limit political moral inversions:
  1. Increased production is good to a society.  More things is more wealth, though external costs such as pollution are relevant.  Distribution of wealth is a separate question, but private property is the best known mechanism to motivate production.
  2. Savings is at best not always economically parasitic.  Corollary to 1.  Savings is parasitic as insurance, and is parasitic as excesses over productive investment requirements.  Spending always improves economic output more than saving, and nearly all future income (production) opportunities are inherently financeable if not foregoing food or shelter.
  3. Absolute equality of all social members as an absolute ideal.  The only controversial aspect here is refusal to consider a gender or class as handicapped children free of responsibility, or superior beings incapable of making accusatory lies.  Equality of rights and opportunity.
  4. Freedom is good.  The most important is the financial Independence to survive without any legal duty to society.  The ideal opportunity of living a comfortable life through sufficient after tax income as rewards for production should be maintained, but this is enough to dismiss outright right wing moral inversions on tax policy.
  5. Work is a privilege.  As opposed to a duty or entitlement.  If duty, then its slavery.  If entitlement, then its corrupt empire unrelated to production, and violating equality of opportunity.  The core understanding of privilege is that every good job has many denied coveters of that job's income, and if you can quickly and cheaply make 20M cars (through automation), then traditional car companies and workers are denied that opportunity.  Cultural pressure to contribute to society is permissible.
  6. Social dividends is a citizen's right and preference. It implies that the cost of all programs alternative to a dividend payment are paid for equally by all citizens.  It implies that citizens are equal and so deserve an equal share of social revenue.  The alternative is that citizens are some authority's servants.
  7. Within the absolute social morality constraints, governance should be structured as independent democratically accountable silos wherever possible rather than as unaccountable hierarchies.  Executive power/authority is recognized as a practical necessity (tieing your own shoelaces without democratic approval regardless of the idealized efficiency of technological democracy advancements), yet all possible oversight and democratic corrective options must be available.
Society should embrace fair markets/game structure, and reject all political manipulations to keep them corrupt.  First, recognizing moral absolutes, then some process for adherence to them is a necessary step in achieving fair markets and governance.

The basic income and social dividend framework
Taxation and equal redistribution of tax funds is the core obvious means of balancing these directives.  And not that difficult to do so, as several policy ranges are possible.  The key debate centers around UBI and accompanying tax level.  I favour gradualism, purely as a concession to disruptive discomfort, but reject low UBI as a mechanism to compel more work.  The latter is unnecessary, and will become obvious in the last "fair markets" section of this paper.

Issues of nationalism are mostly ignored in this paper, but will be addressed in another essay.

Increase production
Not that controversial except for the opposing view of creating more environment per people.  Sterilization and mass extermination is the alternative quiet but fairly widespread view that must be absolutely rejected.  It is a violation of the equality principle for an authority to inflict death, sterilization, and deprivation on those they choose.

Savings is not useful
 is important enough to be its own moral absolute, because it is an important source of moral inversion: "Extortion is good because it will allow us to fund medical research", and "wealth accumulation helps us fund production".  Savings is necessary to fight parasitic insecurity, but eliminating the parasite is more helpful.  Otherwise, savings is literally having more money than you know what to do with.  Though its not something deserving punishment, it is not acceptable to glorify it as a virtue.  Spending always fuels more production, and promotes more productive ideas.

Absolute equality
Should not be that controversial.  But separation of the deserving and undeserving is the most energy intensive political moral inversion efforts.  Entertaining the possibility of exceptions to absolute equality, entertains Ayn Rand's case for valuable people differentiation.  In the context of basic income and social dividends, this principle would avoid special payments to parents and disabled, though there is a strong case for UBI high enough to raise children and/or deal with hardships.  Universal medical device coverage complies with the equality principle as well.

Freedom in high taxes
The only valid objection to taxes is that they are used to advance kings' moral inversions.  Income taxes don't make anyone poorer if they are redistributed.  The natural spending cycle returns the taxes paid to anyone willing to work.  The important freedom everyone deserves is the relative financial independence provided by basic income.  It is a moral inversion of freedom to focus on the freedom from taxes.

Work as privilege
This is the most obvious and most morally inverted absolute.  Its inversion serves not only market supremacist greed and oppressors, but "worker paradise" socialists as well.  Producing/providing things is the social value, and should be done with as little work as necessary and possible.

Basic income and high taxation is a better system than socialism because it does not matter if the monopoly profits are made by evil capitalists or adorable worker cooperatives.  They are sufficient to compensate those locked out of the privilege of those profits.
A strangely stupid socialist objection to UBI is the prospect that UBI could subsidize employers and so increase their profits.  The complaint literally opposes circumstances that help you (more people can and want to hire you) on the grounds that they might benefit from the proposal.

The primitive world model of needing to mobilize every available volunteer for hunting and gathering infinite freely available resources no longer applies.  Basic needs for all can be provided by the few,  and whatever method selects the lucky few, must recognize a compensation duty to the unlucky unselected for the privilege.

No legal duty to society
necessarily avoids oppression.
  • The agriculture industry employs 1% of the workforce, and the only thing stopping it (and every other industry, fundamentally) from making more money is more mouths to feed.
  • Not contributing to society beyond existence lessens competition with other social members for contribution privileges, and increases the need for contributions through consumption demand.
Freedom from oppression is a positive reason to give back to your society, and a negative reason against mass gun rampages.

Fair markets
Fair labour markets is an inherent feature of basic income.  The freedom to refuse work, and still survive is the freedom to survive without obtaining permission to.  It creates more business competition by making it easier to start businesses including cooperatives.  It creates easier to find work and higher wages and profits due to less competitive pressures (some people will work less)

An inherently fair market is one that doesn't need regulation.  Rules for minimum wage, overtime, and whipping limitations exist because the labour market has obvious oppressive power imbalances, and policy bandaids must limit the extent of slavery within the moral transformation of permitting it.  Any reluctance for basic income by employers is an admission that oppression exists, and any reluctance by employees is an admission that oppression doesn't exist.  Wages can fairly go up or down in a fair labour market as the sum of all individual decisions and circumstances.  Its always the best possible estimate of the correct wage, too.

Self regulation of the labour market also makes the level of taxation and UBI and inflation and laziness mostly irrelevant and self adjusting.   The fear that high UBI levels might create inflation and withdrawal from work would simply lower the "real" value of UBI to the actual social surplus produced, and would motivate more to contribute in order to reach their desired consumption levels.  Inflation and work withdrawal increases the earnings, ease of income, and taxes paid for those who want more.  Humanity will work as much as it wants or needs to, and whatever level that is is the correct level, and one where individual freedom and wishes fully actualized.

The right UBI amount
Gradualism is a better approach than pilot studies or referendums to set "the right amount" because it is less disruptive, and not prone to dishonest manipulation and moral transformations of the research results (which will still result in disruption when implemented).

The right minimum amount to graduate to is an amount given to everyone that is sufficient to address what any lobby group has ever obtained as appropriate for what a narrow group deserves.  In Canada, this might be students or parent assistance levels.  Imaginary poverty lines are relevant, but not absolutely so.

A maximum amount depends on tax rates and money printing.  It is possible to set taxes too high, and an obvious hard maximum is a tax rate that reduces tax revenue.  This "tax target" changes with how easy it is for those privileged to work to make money,   It changes with automation level and need for "hard" work, and still has circumstantial considerations that imply a range of acceptable maximums, that need another paper to explain, but the main point of the next section is that absolute social morality restricts the range of policy debate rather than insisting on fixed permanent policy.

Purpose of absolute social morality
Absolute truths in social and economic policy exist.  "Constitutionalizing" them serves to limit morally inverted policy discussions.  Slavery and oppression is not something to be transformed to limit its perceived effect while maintaining the power and advantages afforded to those who extract them.  Slavery and oppression need to be eliminated.  Alternate absolute moral determinations could lead to our grade schools teaching democracy as "a neat trick to fool the niggers into thinking they are free so they work harder".  An absolute morality determination will eliminate the confusion in what society is supposed to be, and honestly outline the constraints of governance.  If there is a theory that a governance system is not corrupt, and made up of only individuals with the highest levels of integrity, then there could be no objection to codifying standards of policy and governance.

Absolute morality is the radical notion that how we explain democracy to our children is actually what constrains legislated policy.

A one sentence summary of absolute social morality is policy to maximize creation and happiness, minimize destruction and deception, and eliminate oppression and slavery.  There is equational multiparameter balance, but zero tolerance for oppression and slavery, and it is applicable as both a personal and social policy model.

Lying moral inverters will try to argue against each of the proposed moral absolutes, and that opportunity should exist if only to open and ceremonize the process and be certain of them.

Absolute morality exposes both left and right wing lies.  The main left wing lie is that "slaves (or the people considerate of them) are the good people and deserve to be the new kings."  While wars are motivated by the spoils, it is fundamentally a losing war proposition for the left and labour to be fighting due to their weakening power in the face of technology.

Absolute morality that focuses the equal  people quality of workers is the best hope for individuals to gain appropriate (balanced) social power.


  1. "A moral transformation is a solution to keeping the world the same while manufacturing a liberal headline."

    This is the most historically ignorant statement in this collection of errors, and that actually says a lot.

  2. The statement is based on whether we as a society, through legislated policy, strive for progress and justice (and elimination of injustice) or whether our legislation strives to keep as much of the injustice as possible.

    What you quoted is just a definition/label for this phenomenon. Its outrageous to suggest that the phenomenon is impossible anywhere, so perhaps you mean to say that democracy is perfect now where you are?

    Some specific counterexamples to the perfection of democracy are:

    ACA (Obamacare): Turned an election promise of Universal healthcare into a morally transformed subsidy of the health industry. Same if not higher healthcare costs. I'm not saying that the ACA or slavery abolition made 0 improvementto anyone. I'm saying that they made the minimum improvement while still serving entrenched power interests.

    In terms of electoral reform, since MLK, all (afaik... at least most) legislative changes have been regressive and towards voter suppression.

    At any rate, even if you believe legislation already strives to maximize fairness and justice, instead of the minimum concessions, the philosophical commitments and constitutional constraints to do so, won't change that. The argument that they are already perfect, backfires if we can all properly understand and celebrate their perfection, by having them make hard legal commitments to perfection. Reelection for life, for our deserving legislative heroes!

    An attempt at a definition cannot be the most ignorant sentence here, but if you want to take a shot at the 2nd most ignorant, go ahead.

  3. Great post, I was doing a google search and your site came up for money lending services but anyway, I have enjoyed reading it, keep it up!

  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.