All philosophy is class philosophy.  Libertarianism is a class philosophy.  All philosophies give precedence to one class or another.

Just as socialism suggests that all are better off if we give primacy to the objective of equality, and political power to the lower classes; just as postmodernism suggests that we will all be better off if we give primacy to equality and political power to the academic and public intellectual classes; just as clssical liberalism suggests that we will be better off if we give primacy to the institution of the family to conduct the family as a business without the interference of the state, and give power to family property owners;  libertarianism suggests that we will be better off if we give primacy to individuals who pursue commercial innovation, and political power to the rule of law (contracts) that allow this innovation to persist unfettered. 

Libertarianism is an economic philosophy that states that (a) we all demonstrate a preference for having our own choices (b) that wealth makes possible our choices (c) that wealth is the product of innovation (creating inequalities which we then pay to equilibrate.)

Libertarianism as a political philosophy that states that (a) all monopolies are bad because people cannot use competition to constrain the bad behavior of people in monopolies (b) all bureaucracies are bad because people in bureaucracies pursue the interest of the bureaucracy at the expense of those it purports to serve (c) government is a monopoly and a bureaucracy that pursues its interests at the expense of those who do ‘real work’ of innovating, producing, risking.

Libertarianism is not against ‘government’.  It is against monopoly and bureaucracy which hinder individual innovation and competition, and the creating of ‘differences’ (inequalities) which we then seek to eliminate. 

Libertarianism allows us to form our own communities with our own rules and norms, in a balance of power between communities with similar interests. These communities will then compete with one another for population, talent, and services.  And people can choose which community to belong to.  In this model there is no ‘state’.  There are just collections of people who form contractual alliances. Just as we make voluntary commercial organizations, we can make voluntary civic organizations.

Libertarianism is not a prohibition on government. IT IS A PROHIBITION ON A MONOPOLY BUREAUCRACY that we call the STATE, that is able to issue COMMANDS under the guise of LAWS, because it maintains a monopoly on th euse of violence to enforce those commands, because that state is isolated from competition, and as such, can pursue the interests of the bureaucracy, or become a tool of special interests that likewise desire monopoly privileges, at the expense of the citizenry.

Consumers arre very important.  Without consumers and credit it is impossible for commercial organizations to make money, and without the ability to make money there is no ability for people to organize into groups. The lower classes are consumers, and quite honestly, produce very little of value other than their consumption.  Lower classes in the libertarian model will either exchange adoption to norms for redistributions in wealthy communities, or organize into their own organizations and charge fees for access to their consumers, which can then be redistributed, thereby minimizing profit.

The market for competition lets us compete toward different ends and preferences, even if we cooperate on means of achieving them.  Monopoly government forces us to compete in government in a win-lose battle for control of the monopoly bureaucracy.   Humans have been cooperating in the market on means, despite having disparate ends, for millennia   There is no reason that we cannot take this insight as far as possible.

That is, unless your desire is to STEAL rather than EXCHANGE. And you are most likely to want to STEAL rather than exchange if governmetn provides a systematic means of stealing from others.  And that’s what government does. It provides a systematic means of stealing.  THe common law and property rights provide a systematic means of exchanging instead of stealing. 

ANARCHISM, or anarcho capitalism (a branch of libertarianism) is a RESEARCH PROGRAM that seeks to find solutions to political problems without the use of the monopolistic bureaucratic state.  Libertarian writers have done a thorough job of solving all but one or two very large problems (I think I may have solved those remaning issues in my work but I am not yet certain.)

ROTHBARDIAN Libertarianism, which is prominent on the web, was designed to be an ideological religion based upon rigorously defended philosophy combining jewish ethics of resistance (the ghetto) with christian legal and moral arguments (natural law) as a  means of resisting both socialism and postmodernism.  As and ideology he reduced that philosophy to very simple moral principles that can function as an ideology (generating emotion) rather than as an institutional prescription (generating arguments.)  This is because Rothbard and his generation understood that the communists had produced a significant literature but could not win the hearts and minds of ordinary voters unless this philosophy was reduced to policy (the ten planks) and ideology (simple, repeatable, emotionally moralistic statements  that would incite people to talk and act in support of those ideas.   So Rothbardian libertarianism is an ideological philosophy not a prescription for institutional solutions to the problems of politics.

REGARDING WHITE MALES : white males (the european, or perhaps germanic, race) seek status under the ancient indo-european proscription for heroism via competition.  The west is unique for having produced this philosophy of  aristocratic egalitarianism – inclusion in equalitarian leadership, and therefore obtaining the reward of property rights, by demonstrated heroism.  And the high trust society of the west is the result of aristocratic egalitarianism (heroic achievement, demonstrated excellence, virtue).  For most of history, and pre-history, males could achieve this only through combat.  With the advent of manorialism, males could demonstrate their fitness through hard work.  With the advent of chivalry males could demonstrate their heroic status by charitable service.  With the advent of consumer capitalism, males could demonstrate their heroic fitness in commerce.  Heroic achievemnet grants access to mates (we have a lof of data on this now that confirms this fact – to the point where we know how many dollars in income per inch of height under 5’10” you must earn to gain the same quality of attractive woman…. Really.)  Women are as shallow about status as men are about physical attraction – and the data is the data.  As such, white males are intuitively attracted to libertarianism if they see in libertarianism a means of pursuing traditional signals for mating, social status, and wealth.  That libertarianism is a rigorous philospohy equalled in detail only by Marxism, and is articulated in economic language and analytical philosophy. It is accessible only to those people with both incentive to learn it, and the ability to understand it.  This is why libertarianism is a minority white male philosophy. It is an aristocratic philosophy and difficult to access.  Other cultures lack both the mythology and cultural values for heroism and egalitarianism   Which is why other cultures also cannot produce the high trust society.  And without the high trust society, the wealth necessary for redistribution (charity) is impossible to achieve at scale. 

RESERVATIONS
1) The first reservation that I have about libertarianism is that unlike classical liberalism (conservatism) and socialism, libertarians are pacifist and unwilling to use violence to establish their social order – and as such it is impossible to put into place. Theft is powerful motivation, and profitable to use in pursuit of political power, and theft is antithetical to Libertarians. Socialism is by definition kleptocracy, and wither you conquer as Rome or as Washington DC, conquest by theft, backed by threat of violence is more successful and profitable than pacifism. (If India had been a French colony, Ghandi would not have been an old man.)

2) The second reservatoin I have about libertarianism is that all philosophies are class philosophies, and that classes are of different sizes. The indo europeans from the Kurgan’s onward were technology using pastoral conquerors and brought aristocratic egalitarianism with them by the use of force. Aristocratic philosophy generates wealth, but also makes visible our differences.  And when those differences in value are visible, people who are in the bottom half of society, or who gain their status through less meritocratic means, feel left behind and ‘unequal’.   For these reasons I think libertarianism is a minority movement and despite having found solutions to every political problem that we know of, we cannot both create inovation and differences while preserving equality   This is logically impossible.  The only solution is to ‘buy’ the compliance of the lower classes through redistribution.

3) The third reservation I have about libertarianism is the discord its less sophisticated advocates create by creating confusion between state, government, court and market.

The market allows us to compete upon ends while cooperating upon means. However, competition is morally objectionable to human beings inside the family group, village or tribe. We licence and encourage competition, because it produces positive results: a virtuous cycle. We tolerate only one form of immorality: competition. Every other form of involuntary transfer: violence, theft, fraud, omission, externalization, free riding, rent seeking and priviatization, systemic corruption, systemic procedural involntary transfer and warfare – we have constrained or outlawed.

We can, in the market, use boycott to deprive organizations of wealth.  But it is not always a strong lever.  We can use the courts to protect us from violence, theft, fraud and omission if we do not surrender our right to sue.

We can use government to protect us from unnecessary competition, free riding and privatization of the commons. when we invest in commons.

We can use the state ‘bank’ as an insurer of last resort.

We can use  multiple houses of government, where we have them, to negotiate exchanges between the classes where market exchange is not possible or creation of commons is not possible, because of the asymmetry of reward of investment in various commons’.

But we can only use market and government to cooperate on means of achieving disparate ends, if government is not open to corruttion. And government is open to corruption if it can make laws rather than conttracts. Only the courts can find or discover laws.  The government if not corrupt, can only negotiate contracts impossible to negotiate in the market.

THis emphasis on contracts relies upon the morality of exchange, rather than the immorality of majority rule, or arbitrary command in pursuit of some artificial common ‘good’.

ON THE FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT

A) NECESSARY PROPERTIES
The NECESSARY properties of of a government are
1) provide a means of resolving differences without the use of violence (ie: to create a monopoly of violence within a geography.)
2) To provide a means of resolving differences requires a definition of property rights.
3) To prohibit alternative definitions of property rights from being imposed by force, theft or fraud, (or immigration.)
4) To provide a means of investing in commons (human and physical infrastructure) by prohibiting free-riding, privatization, and competition when investing in commons.

These are the minimum properties of a government.

B) ADVANTAGEOUS PROPERTIES
In addition to these properties, it may also be possible for a group of people to afford to also have government engage in the following:
5) To provide a means of cooperation between classes where privatization, free riding, rent seeking and competition prevent cooperation between classes.
6) To reduce both transaction costs and fraud by implementing weights, measures and currency.
7) To perform as an insurer of last resort against catastrophes.

These are advantageous properties of government.

C) PROPERTIES THAT ARE LUXURIES
In addition to these properties, it may be possible for a group of people to afford to also have the government engage in the following LUXURIES:
8) Redistribution of all kinds, both in services, and in direct payments.
9) Inter-temporal redistribution from young to old, rather than saving and lending from old to young. (But this is very fragile.)

These are LUXURIES that can be provided by some governments under rare circumstances in exceptional periods of time, where malthusian and group selection problems have been temporarily held at bay by technological innovation.

The government is not the source of the ‘good things’. The courts, under the common law and property rights is the source of ‘good things’. The government has destroyed the common law, the rule of law, and crated both corporatism and socialism. And we now suffer between two factions that try to control the government for corporatist or socialist means.

https://www.quora.com/What-reservations-do-you-have-about-libertarian-principles

The mass necessary to fuel the transport a nuclear weapon across light years of space is so large that there would have to be some reason to do such a thing in the first place.  I mean, if you can move something that far, you don’t need to use a nuclear weapon, just move a rock a little bit so that it hits us. That’s much more logical.

And these things tactics don’t make sense either. THere isn’t any reason to use nuclear weapons. Planets like ours appear to be pretty scarce, so they’re valuable. You wouldn’t want to damage it.

I can’t imagine wanting to trade with aliens.  I think it’s more likely that we would be pets. You don’t nuke pets. You catch and breed them.

https://www.quora.com/If-an-alien-race-launches-a-nuclear-missile-towards-Earth-could-NASA-defend-our-planet

Interesting Answers.  Most of them unsupported or substantially wrong.

Conservative is a reaction to the status quo.  The status quo in america is classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is the founding mythology of our country. This mythology contains the classical liberal, european aristocratic egalitarian view of man that we associate with the Protestant Ethic. The protestant ethical sensibilities are what ‘conservatives’ are ‘conservative’ about.

The reason people become more conservative as they get older is that they have accumulated greater knowledge about the behavior of individuals in the real world.  Young people have experience with the ethic of the family and give undue weight to the consensus bias.   The market is the mature view of man, wherein we have dissimilar interests and goals and we can pursue those goals independently by cooperating on means within the market.  The family is the childlike view of mankind. It is naturally communal and communistic. It is so because a family has similar interests, similar means, and similar abilities.

Single women and single mothers vote more heavily left than any other demographic group.  This changes if they stay married, at which point they skew conservative. If it were not for women voters, and specifically single women voters, we would never have had a liberal president, and it’s unlikely we would ever have had a liberal government.  FOr this reason, women are responsible for the left shift in america.   And the increase in single women and single mothers is the result of the feminist attack on the nuclear family as an economic institution.  Single women revert to their instinctual reproductive strategy: to bear children but to place responsibility for supporting them on the tribe.  The family is the smallest tribe possible. When the family is not present, women still pursue their reproductive strategy, and vote to place responsibility on the state (the tribe) for services.

As we get older we understand the scarcity of good and services, and we understand the nature of human beings as more selfish and less communal.  The market system and the family compensate for these selfish properties of human being and create community by controlling the selfish behavior of human beings.

That is why people become more conservative as they get older.

https://www.quora.com/What-causes-people-to-become-more-conservative-over-time

For whom are they hard to work with?

We follow the Protestant Work Ethic. Tell the truth, the whole truth, up front, make a promise and stick to it regardless of change.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-American-US-ways-that-cause-people-from-other-cultures-to-find-them-hard-to-work-with

In reality, no.  (We have been doing it for ten years.) 
(a) skills are perishable
(b) experience is not indicative of performance – perhaps error reduction, but not competitive performance.
(c) rate of career advancement, educational institution (a filter), IQ and physical appearance are the best individual measures.

We have used stack ranking and peer review and it is surprisingly effective.  Management is almost always wrong. Peers are the best determinant of value.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-quantify-work-experience

REALITY:
People organize.  They organize to their advantage. Especially where that advantage is mating preference, easier communication and collaboration, . 

When people organize, they organize by race, class, culture, gender, religion and political association.  They organize by neighborhood, by type of work, and by professional association. In the USA, class and race have the most influential and visible biases.

As consumers people do not organize in the consumption of commodity goods and services, but they do organize in the consumption of specialized goods and services.

For people to organize by political association, they must desire either to change the status quo, or to resist change in the status quo.

There are very big bureaucratic companies, that because of size, are politically antiseptic to the point where political discussion is taboo.  There are small and medium sized organizations where they actively select for political affilliation.  It is very hard for a conservative to be hired by a left wing non profit organization, and it is very hard for an ideological liberal to be hired or work in, a firm where every individual is personally accountable for financial results.

This is because people with similar political affiliations have similar value systems, and in many companies subjective preferences are meaningful to how they get along.  Further, some industries are biased one direction or the other because of both values, and because of the signals associated with certain types of careers. 

While most companies ostensibly have policies against hiring for anything other than skill and experience, the fact is that everyone hires for ‘fit’ into the culture. In most businesses this means fitting into  a business model that self selects: a tradesman (conservative) an entrepreneurial culture (libertarian), a care-taking culture (progressive) or a bureaucratic culture (postmodern). 

I cannot see the logic of working within an organization that contains a lot of people whose views you disagree with. The job is at a very high cost in opportunity to you, and at a very high cost of friction to you and others.  THe only reason that makes sense is if you want to draw attention to yourself. And usually this is because your self perceived status is higher than other people treat you. Or that you have psychological issues outside of the workplace that you want to exercise within a workplace where people have less easy means of walking away from, or avoiding you.  If there is some place that you would very much like to work, then the question remains why you should impose upon those people your beliefs and desires that are arguably external to the work place.  And instead, it may be wise to work elsewhere.

https://www.quora.com/Should-the-personal-socio-political-views-of-individuals-working-at-a-company-dissuade-potential-job-applicants-if-they-disagree-with-those-beliefs

I don’t think the concept of ‘problem’ makes a great deal of sense in this context – or at least I’m not sure what you are referring to.  Our world changes.  Agrarianism, organized religion, government, literacy, industrialization, and even electric light, have had a dramatic impact on people’s lives.  We are always in a state of change.  I don’t see this as a ‘problem’ unless it creates some outcome or other that is demonstrably a material ‘bad’ that we can measure. And I have a problem seeing social media as anything other than a free market for information that is not impeded by organized mysticism or organized statism.

I think that the way we educate children in schools could easily be described as prisons, where we subject them to artificially exaggerated social stresses because they interact with too few adults and do so in abnormal circumstances. We artificially induce extended childhoods, and delay the onset of mature adulthood.  This not only causes absurd stresses but creates alienation from the nuclear family that would normally provide the adaptive environment that creates the calm, confident and healthy mind. So, we create  alienation as a systemic condition in society.  (Childhood as we understand it is a recent invention. And probably a bad one.)

I think that social media provides a form of competition against this destructive environment, that reduces alienation.  And that the internet in general, provides so much information, that it is possible for children to find membership in groups regardless of locale. 

So I think the argument is that school is the problem of alienation and we see social media providing a solution to alienation, and that some of us would prefer that such alienation did not need to be mollified by social media, and instead a healthy individual was developed inside of the nuclear family.  But the problem here is not social media. It is education and the incentive for two parent incomes that make possible our intergenerational redistribution.

So, the net is, that social media, and the interenet in general, are net goods.  The problem is everything else.

https://www.quora.com/What-advantages-or-disadvantages-do-social-media-contribute-to-the-educational-development-or-problems-among-our-youth-today

The Prince is the first example of the scientific study of politics.  While science starts with Aristotle, practical political science starts with Machiavelli.  To the point where, were it not for the illiterate we would probably call political scientists ‘Machiavellians’ – and some historians and philosophers have done so (Burnham for example.)

Machiavelli wrote when trade was moving from the Mediterranean to the north atlantic. And Italy, which had been the center of trade for at least 1500 years was flung into internecine warfare in the struggles for power. The upheavals this caused were catastrophic and remain with Italy to this day.
 
Machiavelli gave practical advice to leaders about how to govern by rational rather than ideological grounds. Our concept of morality today originated with the enlightenment. In Machiavelli’s time, morality was more closely connected with the church and the Prince is Machiavelli’s attempt to suggest to political leaders that practical morality in the interest of citizens is superior to ideological morality which may lead to worse consequences for citizens.  In this sense, Machiavelli starts the west’s long rise toward the enlightenment.

As an administrator in the city service, he had been in charge of the city defenses, and had knowledge of the local government and war. But his work was also based on other works, most importantly Livy, and we usually recommend that people interested in the Machiavelli read the Discourses On Livy as well as The Prince in order to understand Machiavelli’s attempt to compare the past with the present and draw conclusions about what actions we must take.

https://www.quora.com/Did-Machiavelli-write-The-Prince-as-a-satire

The libertarian position is often misinterpreted.  We do not suggest that cartels will not form. Rather, that cartels are not sustainable.   Our position is that they aren’t sustainable, nor are monopolies, without government support.  If they are sustainable, then they’re probably market-efficient, and therefore not a cartel in practice -although its pretty difficult to imagine such a thing.

The counter argument is that government interference can end cartels more quickly than the market.  Although this is both questionable and comes at a very high price: Phone service was a lot better Before the breakup of ATT, and the attack on MIcrosoft was an attack on the desire of a company to give us for free what others wanted money for.

(One concern: I am not confident that the land problem has been solved however – or that it matters. But I think it is arguable that the problem of land cannot be solved without war  on one end of the spectrum and restricted reproduction on the other.)

As others have noted, the Phoebus cartel did disappear quickly. So I assume that you were simply confused by the difference between whether cartels are possible or whether they’re sustainable.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-libertarian-position-on-the-Phoebus-cartel

Plato, like Confucius (孔夫子), could not solve the problem of politics and resorted to trying to manufacture virtue in a factory, in order to justify totalitarianism. Western Civilization has suffered from him ever since.

And if it were not for Aristotle correcting him, we might not have been able to recover from it.

https://www.quora.com/Plato-What-are-the-key-takeaways-from-The-Republic

THIS IS THE CORRECT ANSWER

Others have described the phenomenon imprecisely. I will have to try do better until someone does better than I:

1) Sociology relies on surveys which are almost always false, because of natural properties  innate in human psychology and cognitive processes.   Sociology relies upon experiments, the conditions of which have greater affect on the answers provided than the natural environment in which teh behavior would be demonstrated. So in effect, ANY TEST that you issue will bias towards collectivist results, even if people will ACT upon individual incentives in the actual circumstance. This is pretty obvious really. 

2) Economics instead, relies upon demonstrated actions independent of tests. This is why economics has become the primary social science: we measure demonstrated actions rather than what people state they would do.

3) Behavioral psychology tries to reduce the problem of sociological testing by proving the indvalidity of social surveys and tests.  The only valuable survey information appears to be voting records, which if detailed enough, like economic data, demonstrate what people actually do rather than what they say they will do in any given circumstance.

4) Sociology seems to attract people who are disproportionately subject to various collectivist biases, and the related cognitive biases. (Google ‘Common economic errors’, ‘Common Cognitive Biases’, “Common Social Cognitive Biases’.)   We must remember, that the farther down the IQ scale you are, the more you must rely on the opinions, thoughts, and interpretations of otherse for your information.  Every 15 points of IQ is about one standard deviation.  That means people cannot really talk to each other easily across 15 points of difference and cannot even grasp each other’s world views or contexts, or implied causal relations at 30 points. THe predominance of science is improving this by repeated exposure

5)  The output of these surveys and experiments produces biased and therefore false information and conclusions, but the people who conduct them have both a subconscious bias, a preferential interest, and a career interest, and a political interest in believing and promoting the false outputs.  There is a market for this false information available in public intellectuals, politicians and organizers. This false information is used for political purposes, under the pretense of academic neutrality, and empirically supported truth – none of which are true either.

The public cannot understand this, the teachers use it because teachers are from the bottom 15% of graduating classes in intelligence, self select for the nurture bias, which is the source of left wing moral specialization, and must try to form homogeneity of interests among pupils with diverse backgrounds, and require justification for their actions. This is conversely why they cannot teach history or art history any longer, because this would require value judgements that distributed status signals to different members of a group that they seek to treat as  homogenous family in order to control the room.

Statistically speaking, in any university department sociologists will have the lowest IQ distribution of any of the major disciplines, economists, mathematicians and medical doctors the highest distribution.  (Michigan study).

For these reasons, the discipline of sociology is in fact, an unscientific tool of propaganda created, maintained, and  used by the lowest IQ distribution in academia as a means of attepting to justify the failed communist, socialist, and now postmodernist ideology that seeks to compete against the natural sorting of people opportuntiy, income and political power behind those groups, families, and individuals with demonstrated meritocratic superiority in the market for goods, services, and military defense.

Harsh words.
True words.
The conservatives are correct.

https://www.quora.com/Is-sociology-leftist-propaganda-masquerading-as-science

Some of us have been working on this problem for a very long time. Ever since we realized that democracy (universal enfranchisement without demonstrated merit) was simply the slow road to totalitarianism.

The arguments vary from increasing totalitarianism (most likely) to American dissolution (most beneficial) to direct monetary democracy( you vote your money to what you want without a corruptible middleman that we call a politician) to a market system where the government is merely constitutional and insurance companies are who we rely upon.  There are many different permutations.  However, most of us believe that the only possible venue will be totalitarianism and civil war, since it is impossible to get people to agree on a new system unless under threat of chaos.

https://www.quora.com/What-will-come-after-democracy

INCREDIBLY FUNNY BUT TERRIBLY BAD ANSWERS : HERE IS THE CORRECT ONE.

Here is the correct, and entirely impolitic one. It also accounts for poverty and IQ statistics.

Diversity increases extremes.

—PART 1 – CAUSATION—
ECONOMICS OF RACE AND REPRODUCTION

QUESTION: “Why is single motherhood so common in the south?”

Well, of course I don’t like to say the impolitic truth and then have to fend off the ignorant. Quora is peopled by the demographic that does not rely on data. We know this because almost all questions there can be answered easily with available data. But since all data of meaning requires knowledge of economics and statistics, and ignorance of economics and statistics is pervasive, this prohibits access to comprehension of that data, and prohibits resolution of questions of popular opinion and political doctrine.

As such, it’s tedious to answer impolitic questions here. That is why few people do it.

That said, I will do my best:

FAMILY STRUCTURE

1) Family structure and family economic structures determine poverty. The nuclear family is highly efficient economic structure. The two income nuclear family is the most efficient economic structure. For a male it is the smallest tribe he can be alpha in, and maintain access to a female as he declines in desirability For a woman she is the alpha female in her tribe of one, and has a monopoly claim on his production for the duration of her childrearing, despite her declining ‘desirability’ during this time. The nuclear family also places asset demands on the male, and therefore delays marriage and mating, both of which increase the skill level, work experience of the members.

2) Redistribution undermines the family and increases poverty, partly because men in the lower classes are less desirable (and able) than women in the lower classes, because men are more widely distributed in feature and ability than are women, with more men at the very top (nobel prize winners) and more men at the bottom (persistently impulsive criminality). Our Y chromosome is where nature experiements, and our wider male distribution affects mating under monogamy, and less so under polygyny, because under polygyny, a smaller number of more desirable males can be shared amongst a larger number of marginally more desirable females.

3) Racial groups are more or less ‘desirable’ as mates worldwide, not just in the states. This has largely to do, as best as any of us can tell, with a mating preference for females with thinner skin in contrast to mates with thicker skin as a signal that is different from the thicker skin of males. Since the only uniform scale of beauty across all cultures, other than symmetry, is quality of female skin clarity, this is the only selection preference necessary to explain racial preferences, other than the rate at which we appear to have exited Africa and begun the process of near-speciation (racial diversification), and the problem of access to vitamin D in the northern climes. This research is impolitic and the people who pursue it are ostracized from academia so it has moved to being conducted under a different guise, or now to china where such things are considered only logical. But the research is available. And it shows that fairer, thinner skin on females with finer features, is more desirable regardless of racial group.

4) People mate almost entirely within race (<15%) and prefer to associate, work, and live within racial groups. With the consumer marketplace for goods the only shared environment. Extremes can run counter to this fact with crossing occurring at the lower and higher ends of desirability where each individual has better options in mates and often better access to social class by crossing racial boundaries.

5) Even where racial admixture occurs, it places downward pressure on extra-group status and opportunity (desirability). In other words, racially mixed children maintain the lower of their racial preferences. Altough in black and hispanic communities and families children are still ranked in preference by skin color because it grants access to status both mating and social.

ECONOMICS
6) Impulsivity (the ability to resist impulses) varies between the races, with the east asians the least impulsive distribution, and the subsaharan african population the most impulsive. Impulsivity is a positive reproductive strategy unless external (climate) pressures punish survival. Impulsivity places a high penalty on learning ability which favors long periods of ‘frustration’ and concentration.

7) Impulsivity affects both trustworthiness and creditworthiness. Nuclear families have higher more stable incomes, and are more creditworthy, as well as more economically efficient. As such high densities of nuclear families will produce higher wealth. Higher wealth will generate greater opportunity. Greater opportunity within a geography will increase demand for housing in that geography. Housing in that geography will increase in price. People who live in more impulsive, less efficient groups will of course, be unable to gain access to that geography and its opportunities.

8) For these reasons (Which I assume I should use graphs to illustrate) the reason that poverty and single motherhood are so prevalent in the south is that 74% of black mothers, and a high percentage of hispanic mothers are unmarried. And they live in close communities reliant on support from extended family members, with populations too high to integrate into more successful communities. White single motherhood is on the increase in the lower classes, and teh USA, Ireland and New Zealand, where the postmodernist and feminist movements have been most successful, have the highest rates of single motherhood among whites, and the countries of southern europe who remain familially integral the lowest: Italy, Greece, Spain and Luxembourg.

TRUST AND OPPORTUNITY
All humans are faced with opportunities for both cooperation and conflict at all times. We must choose how to apply our limited time effort and resources to a limited number of opportunities.

All opportunities other than exchanges of commodities purely on price, consist of a network of cost and benefit tradeoffs. All cost and benefit tradeoff’s are simple.

We trade (cooperate) on all sorts of terms, but economic status, social status, values, language, culture(mythology, habits) are significant terms. Every variation in every property that is not identical in interest is a negative.

Status signals (status and reputation) have higher value in-group than across groups. Therefore status pressure to encourage each of us to adhere to agreements is of higher value in-group.

Therefore we trust and cooperate in-group at lower cost and risk than across group.

This is why people break into racial, cultural, socioeconomic, educational, generational, occupational groups. Because it’s the lowest risk pool of people with the lowest cost of cooperation, even if it’s less productive it may also be the only pool available to you where you can find someone willing to pay the higher cost of cooperating with you across groups.

Political discourse assumes we want to help each other and we do. The problem is the logic of that statement -it’s meaningless when we CAN help everyone, we must still choose the best return on our help. And we do. And that is how it is. Anything else is irrational.

SOUTHERN RELIGIOSITY
Race is the reason for ‘everything’ in the south, including religiosity. Although southern religiosity we must understand is a rebellion against the state, after the north conquered the south. Race is the reason for everything in america. People are born, live, reproduce, associate, work with, and speak to, people within their racial groups except where they participate in the marketplace together.

RATES OF POVERTY BY RACE
Page on Carseyinstitute…

RATES OF SINGLE MOTHERHOOD BY RACE
LINK: KIDS COUNT Data Center…

There is no end of data on this subject.

—PART II—
CORRELATION NOT CAUSATION

States are, in general, rational economic alliances, usually run by an oligarchy, and usually the oligarchy grants monopolistic privileges to key industries in order to fund them sufficiently that they can compete outside of the local market where returns are highest.  We call this corporatism.  It is a rational system. Unfortunately, the natural incentive of all monopolies, and of course, a political bureaucracy is by definition a monopoly, are self interested and will prey upon their populations to the limits at which they can maintain power.

Religions are ARATIONAL (not irrational) and they are a means of setting the moral limits to the actions of the state. Religions are resistance movements. Mystical religions consist of rational ends, but stated irrationally.  The only religion that is compatible with the state rather than an opposition to it is polytheistic, or what we today would call ‘history worship.”  The state will attempt to control religious doctrine to the best of its ability. In some cases it succeeds – theocracy results.  This is usually bad, because while oligarchic monopolies are self interested and predatory, they are also economically productive.  Theocratic bureaucracies are self interested and predatory but economically unproductive, and they manufacture ignorance in volume.

The south is religious as a means of opposing the state. First, in response to the conquest by the north. Second as a resistance to the north.  Third as a resistance to racial integration.  Fourth as a resistance the feminist and postmodern attack on the family using redistribution and law. 

I will leave it to you whether the use of arational methods to resist the state is effective (it is) or and whether or not it is right (it appears that the feminist, socialist, and postmondern movements have systemically increased poverty by destruction of the nuclear family.)

—PART III – CONCLUSION—

There is a correlation between southern religiosity and single motherhood, but there is no causal relationship.

I hope that this was helpful and informative.

Curt Doolittle

https://www.quora.com/How-do-Christian-conservatives-in-the-USA-explain-the-very-high-teen-birth-rates-in-the-Bible-Belt

Conservative means ‘in relation to the status quo, resist non-organic changes by force of law’.  In the USA it means conservative toward european aristocratic egalitarianism, and the nuclear family as an economic unit.

Conservatives were against slavery (Democrats were for it), and against communism (Democrats were for it, and adopted the platform).

I”m not sure you can really argue this out either way.  It is becoming clear that the postmodernist movement is both false and dangerous, but the democratic party, and liberals practice it as their social religion the way that conservatives practice the cult of the revolution.

I can’t really address an issue of this scope here, but conservatives are decisively not always on the wrong side.  The conservative strategy simply requires that you achieve something through merit not by force.  So whatever you wish to accomplish (gay marriage) will be successful once you’ve demonstrated that you’ve ade your case and convinced the majority.  This is how they work.

https://www.quora.com/Arent-social-conservatives-always-on-the-wrong-side-of-history-Social-conservatives-were-against-the-ending-of-slavery-Social-conservatives-were-against-women-gaining-the-right-to-vote-Social-conservatives-were-against-the-Civil-Rights-Movement

A homogeneity of interests would lead us to become evolutionarily vulnerable   The question implies it’s a good. When in fact, the question is rather, “humanity as a whole should not have a goal, only an agreed upon means of achieving dispararte goals. To do otherwise is the presumption of knowledge.

Our only shared goal is to persist.

https://www.quora.com/What-should-be-humanitys-goal

You will be surprised by this, but, roughly speaking, a quarter of the population expresses surveyed preferences that are libertarian, a quarter conservative, a quarter liberal, and a quarter anti-libertarian.

Power could be maintained in the USA with fiscally conservative, and slowly enacted socially liberal policies (which is what happens anyway, after a lot of distraction and infighting.)

That this roughly reflects the gender distribution in the population, and a fairly even distribution between the genders, would actually make common sense. (It does). 

What has altered the political landscape, and continues to, is the number of single women and single mothers in the voting pool has increased substantially since 1960.  At present, it’s arguable, that all other things being equal, single women and mothers decide elections. 

That is one of the reasons that candidates now must be somewhat attractive. Because for single women, and single mothers, the attractiveness of a candidate is a meaningful reason for their vote. If a candidate is both attractive, and well spoken, and supports redistribution and equalitarianism – redistribution outside of the nuclear family, the vote is all but ensured.

For most poeple who understand these demographic issues, it’s saddening, because american politics, and the politics of all democracies, are just form of  entertainment that is a vast waste of time and energy that is determined by a small number of axis of influence: the homogeneity (good) vs diversity (bad) in a population. The structure of the family unit from individual, to family, to extended family, clan and tribe.  The size of the population (big is bad, small is good.)   In other words, you will get a ‘Denmark’ if you have a small homogenous country of nuclear families, because in the nuclear family both genders have equal reproductive interests.

I suspect that this is one of the most profound things you can learn – certainly on Quora.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-of-you-are-libertarian

YES.  See “Coming Apart”, and the surveys on trust, and the measurements of civic participation of all forms. 

As diversity increases, government increases, and civility, and civil participation decrease. 

It has to.  Signals require that does.

https://www.quora.com/Has-there-been-a-decline-in-civility-in-America

I’ve hosted something or other at most of the restaurants with space. Starting from downtown and working outward:  If you have a very large group, Maggianos has the best facilities and parking, service and food. I don’t think anyone else is nearly as good for scale. For the next step down in size, but up in quality, El Gaucho.  Most of the restaurants can be booked out.  Best food is pretty clearly Seastar, but they have constrained space – although they can take over the conference room on the first floor and that will suit a decent crowd. The facilities at twisted cork (or whatever it is called now) are awesome, and the kitchen is fairly good, and it’s locally owned so you can get attention and care. I would recommend the Bellevue Club, and … what’s the other one…. right downtown..  Can’t remember the name.  Barking Frog if you can get it.   Pomegranate in Bellevue is the top caterer on the eastside in my opinion, although Seattle has plenty to offer. So you could get a hotel (cheap) then hire Pomegranate. I won’t recommend the hotels – they’re universally bad. Outside of town the winery is popular (but good luck with that) and my favorite facility that I always recommend is Newcastle golf course. Especially for brunches. But booking it out is something that you have to compete with

I can’t recommend downscale, because I don’t use it.

Hope that helps.

https://www.quora.com/What-restaurants-in-Bellevue-WA-are-good-for-large-groups

Bellevue is one of the top three or four cities to live in, in America if you’re in the upper middle class.  Which is a decidedly unambiguous ‘if’.

The first thing to get out of the way is the weather.  First, if you watch movies filmed in Seattle or Vancouver Canada, notice how little yellow is in the light. It’s grey here. Aways.  Second, we have wind storms in the fall that take down our pine trees like a locust harvest, and they in turn take down power lines for days or weeks at a time. Third, Seattle never experienced the small farm phase of the eighteenth and nineteenth century so there aren’t side roads, villages, and ‘other ways’ of getting anywhere. Traffic can be brutal.  Lastly, and most importantly, Bellevue’s most popular drugs are anti depressants and hemorrhoid prescriptions. Why? The rain is absolutely devastating for anyone who is not acclimated to it, or predisposed to perpetual cheerfulness. If it rains for one hundred days and it’s grey it will absolutely demoralize most people to the point where they sit around all day without motivation.  This can only be countered with physical exercise. If the correlation between weather and outdoor recreation here isn’t obvous then hopefully this makes it clear to you. If you are not predisposed toward outdoor activity this is not a good place to live unless you love a life bound by pharmaceuticals.

The next thing is the geography.  It is absolutely beautiful. It is also really, really, really far from the rest of the country.  Other than driving to Portland, which is four hours away, it literally takes DAYS, not hours, DAYS of driving to get out of the northwest.  I’ve lived in Boston and seen a Museum show in the morning and been at party in new york city that night. That doesn’t happen out here. If you don’t like mountains and trails then this is a very bad place to live – because that’s all there is.

Dating.  There are more males in the northwest than females, and while it’s single digits, it’s pretty obvious single digits. If you are a woman, men here are more nerdy or casual than they are masculine.  Women are, shall we say, outside of Bellevue anyway, more likely to be wearing sandals and a t shirt and no makeup than any other form of dress.  People do not ‘dress up’ at night eitehr.  I pretty much live in jeans and a sport jacket and I’m usually one of the bettter dressed people. Like every city in america there is one woman who does exclusive matchmaking. And this statement from her is telling: “in twenty years I have never matched a Seattle man to a Seattle woman’.  The meaning of that statement is profound – women have to be imported now, just like they were for Seattle’s lumberjacks – albiet less crassly.  The concept of ‘cultured’ in Seattle is definitely west coast, meaning ‘unassuming and inoffensive’ it does not mean ‘possessed of knowelge about the arts and letters”.  As someone who is traditionally ‘cultured’ I had a very hard time adapting to the northwest culture.

The northwest was irrelevant during the period of industrial migration, so it never experienced the immigration of diversity that has led to such conflict,  crime and decay in the industrial centers from Minneapolis to Boston, nor did it experience the historical problems from Chicago to the south.  Because of this, Seattle is still the second or third whitest city in america. And whether it is politic to say or not, that means that it’s a pretty calm and perhaps boring place to live, that is absent endemic class, race and cultural warfare.

The one obvious thing that is disappearing is the remainder of the ‘hippie’ movement of the sixties and seventies.  This group, and their culture, and the goth type cultures that followed them, are pretty evident here.

Boeing imported a culture of engineers, and Microsoft imported a culture of technologists. Bellevue/Redmond/Seattle is sort of like living in Cambridge without the incessant poverty, malcontents, tourists and students. Until recently, Seattle had the highest per capita consumption of non fiction books in the country. Nerds need something to do in the rain.

Moreover, Microsoft gave more of its profits to employees than any company in history, and quite possibly more than all companies in history combined. This combination of upper middle class engineers, immigrant engineers from India and Asia, and a cost of housing that prohibits the entry of ‘undesirables’ has created an interesting artificial economy – a sort of ‘green zone’ that really exists nowhere else other than perhaps, a little more radically in Austin Texas.

The lakes and bridges separate Seattle culture (more urban) from Bellevue culture (more upper middle class).  This means one has access to downtown Seattle (which is decreasing in importance as bellevue restaurants are now as good or better) but keeps the rabble at a distance.

Microsoft is a company in decline and while it is an unspoken truth, everyone carries on with the pretense that it isn’t Steve Ballmer’s fault (it is).    But service in stores is fantastic because the guy with messy hair and jeans might be worth ten million.  And everyone including the incompetent politicians in Redmond who have doomed their town with planning and debt, carry on as if the emperor had clothes.

A town can be judged by its car dealerships and Bellevue has one of the largest and most popular exotic car dealerships in America (They sold my Ferrari for me).  Seattle has a Ferrari/Maserati dealer, and Bellevue has everything including a Porsche dealer that has to keep a lot full of back-stock to keep up with demand, as well as lotus, Bentley and Aston Martin Dealerships, as well as Jaguar Land Rover and the commong german brands of Mercedes, BMW and Audi.  You have to leave town to find an American car dealership.  

The mall is a family run enterprise, and a good one,  and the downtown core is owned by a local. Cops are unnecessarily strict and are not above giving tickets just to raise department revenue.  The city has grown a lot and I’m not sure it’s been for the good.  The parks in Bellevue  and the rapid access to every outdoor activity you can imagine means that you can actually take your kids out of the house in relative safety an get them exhausted enough to let you sleep at night.

And that is the reason to live there.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-to-live-in-Bellevue-WA

Spend money shopping.
Eat at exceptionally good restaurants that are equal to NY or SF.
Drive to hiking. Walk to hiking. Ride bicycles. Drive to Skiing.
Raise kids.
That’s it.
No joke.
That’s it.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-fun-things-to-do-in-Bellevue-WA

The problem is, I’m not sure what you are really asking here.

If you mean, that the success of europe was due to the independence of small city-states that were privately owned enterprises (oligarchies), with heavy integration between the governemtn and privileged (monopolist) industries, and that european success can be attributed in part to this relationship rather than ‘free trade and Smithian compeition”  then his analysis holds as far as that statement is concerned.  I think Smith’s argument was an attempt to suggest free trade would limit wars caused by these monopoly interests, since the transformation that we call the enlightenment was an effort to correct the problem of the 30 years war by finding an alternative social order.

If we mean, that capital has been divorced from the city state by more widespread production networks, I think that’s accepted wisdom. I think it’s become apparent that capital is mobile and that states have a limited ability to control it.  States generally desire to remain autarkic and capitalists have the polar opposite position.

If we mean, do norms and culture matter and does it matter that they remain constant and uninterrupted, I think Hayek and others have supported that pretty aggressively, and that the right agrees and the left hates it because it violates postmodernism’s religious doctrines.

That governments operate almost entirely today as insurance companies, and that in retrospect it looks like city states insured their industries, I think also that this is accepted wisdom. 

That capitalists compete against the state is also true, and if we understand that the state has appropriated the capitalist-oligarchical-industrial organization that was the reason for the success of europe, I’m not sure that the fact that the insurance company (the state) has invaded and stolen the assets of the business people, on behalf of the common people, is probably the way most look at it. But that is what happened.

That Braudel may have attempted to justify state monopoly and socialism rather than small states, is propbably an incorrect deduction to make from that analysis. 

Braudel is one of many historians, social scientists, economists and  philosophers, that have tried to solve the problem of the theory of the social sciences.  One thing I would suggest and so would have Nietzsche, is that the fundamental disconnect in Braudel’s argument is that there is a common good, and one that can be known, and certainly one that is homogenous, and about which we can achieve consensus. Instead, this is one of the mistakes we inherited with the conquest of European paganism by judeo-christian totalitarian mysticism.   Democracy being yet aother instantiation of that monotheistic and therefor monopolistic and therefore totalitarain mysticism. (If you can follow that line of Nietzscheian reasoning. 🙂

https://www.quora.com/Does-Fernand-Braudels-analysis-in-Civilization-Capitalism-1955-79-still-hold

I am not sure that such a thing can exist. For a market to exist it must function. If it doesn’t function it’s not a market but the lack of one. So it’s not logical.  As Bertil Hatt asks, you can mean a market that exhibits certain categories of failure, or a market that is inefficient. But not a non-functioning market.  Can you clarify wat you’re asking?  GIve us some context?

https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-non-functioning-market

The question is somewhat misleading. A private law society requires a homogeneity of interests, and therefore is a small society.  An argument in favor of a private law society is an argument in favor of many small societies (private cities). Since society’s ills are largely the product of the opposing vales of credit at scale, but diversity of interests at scale, we generally need governments to resolve conflicts between groups with competing interests, all of whom dislike compromising, but all of whom benefit from the insurance value and credit value of a large government.

What is important here is that Hoppe has solved the problem of large monopolistic bureaucratic government acting as an extortionary, self-interested monopoly insurer maximizing it’s profit for employees, with small cities and competing insurance companies. That this is advocating a return, en large, to the pre-empire german city states, is probably not lost on historians. It isn’t lost on  Hoppe.

So it is a reasonable solution except that the value of credit to large populations is that they can finance the wars necessary to keep other large states at bay.  This is where the banking and fiat credit system as we understand it comes from: the finance of the wars of napoleon and britain.  Which is one of rothbard and hoppe’s reasons for trying to undermine the large monpoly state: is that it is used to finance warfare.  However, if the USA uses it to finance warfare, that means europe can use it for social programs, because europe doesn’t have to. The US then sells enough dollars as petrodollars to pay for its military, and then inflates the debt, effectively charging these countries – and the whole world, for the cost of its military.

I hope this helps put such things in context.

https://www.quora.com/How-might-a-Private-Law-Society-be-a-reasonable-solution-for-most-of-the-social-ills-of-civilization

Because, according to our laws, if you don’t want someone to traverse your land or hunt on it you have to say so.  Posted means that they’ve informed you that you can’t go there. Laws vary but it means no trespassing and that you cannot claim ignorance as a defense, because you have been informed.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-private-property-signs-have-the-word-POSTED-in-huge-letters

all commons are redistribution. The question is whether the comons that we contribute to create either hazards, perverse incentives, and free-riding. 

There has been an organized effort for the beter part of a century, to support rather than avoid free riding, and penalize the middle class to fund reproduction by the lower classes.

Redistribution is probably EARNED if you adhere to manners, ethics, morals and laws – albiet the argument is too complex for this post.    If you do not adhere of manners, ethics morals and laws, it is very hard to argue that you have earned any form of redistribution.

https://www.quora.com/Values-and-Principles-Should-the-US-government-have-the-power-to-tax-one-group-in-order-to-help-another

The chinese will lose their Work Ethic just like American Ethnicity and People and Japanese, when enough of them are in the Middle Class (social class) and urbanized that they no longer fear going back to the farm – where real hard work must be done.
🙂

https://www.quora.com/Despite-the-obvious-differences-in-cultural-work-ethic-between-American-and-Chinese-workers-why-has-America-remained-the-most-productive-nation-per-worker-in-the-world

Liberalism is the political wing of a religion.  That religion is Postmodernism.  Postmodernism was created as a linguistic attack on reason, in order to find a solution to seizing political power, given the failure of socialism in theory and in practice.

Irrational contradiction is a necessary and pervasive tactic in the postmodern religion. Instead of believing in mystical divinities, this religion attributes false properties to mankind, then advocates belief in natural contradictions, very similar to jewish and christian contradictions, in order to avoid attacks by reason against their arguments.  THere is absolutely NOTHING different between the religion of liberals (Postmodernism) and the religion of social conservatives (christianity) except that postmodernism puts power in the state, and american protestant christianity is an organized opposition to the state. Both of which are fighting for power to control the state, in order to protect their interests.

EXAMPLES OF LIBERAL (POSTMODERN) IRRATIONALITY

(from Hicks)

THE POSTMODERN RELIGION, AND ITS POLITICAL WING: LIBERALISM
The left is a kleptocracy, and its religion is postmodernism.

“In postmodern discourse, truth is rejected explicitly and consistency can be a rare phenomenon. Consider the following pairs of claims.

1) On the one hand, all truth is relative; on the other hand, postmodernism tells it like it really is.

2) On the one hand, all cultures are equally deserving of respect; on the other, Western culture is uniquely destructive and bad.

3) Values are subjective—but sexism and racism are really evil.

4) Technology is bad and destructive—and it is unfair that some people have more technology than others.

5) Tolerance is good and dominance is bad—but when postmodernists come to power, political correctness follows.

There is a common pattern here: Subjectivism and relativism in one breath, dogmatic absolutism in the next. Postmodernists are well aware of the contradictions—especially since their opponents relish pointing them out at every opportunity.

Consider three more examples, this time of clashes between postmodernist theory and historical fact.

1) Postmodernists say that the West is deeply racist, but they know very well that the West ended slavery for the first time ever, and that it is only in places where Western ideas have made inroads that racist ideas are on the defensive.

2) They say that the West is deeply sexist, but they know very well that Western women were the first to get the vote, contractual rights, and the opportunities that most women in the world are still without.

3) They say that Western capitalist countries are cruel to their poorer members, subjugating them and getting rich off them, but they know very well that the poor in the West are far richer than the poor anywhere else, both in terms of material assets and the opportunities to improve their condition.

In the modern world, Left-wing thought has been one of the major breeding grounds for destruction and nihilism. From the Reign of Terror to Lenin and Stalin, to Mao and Pol Pot, to the up-surge of terrorism in the 1960s and 1970s, the far Left has exhibited repeatedly a willingness to use violence to achieve political ends and exhibited extreme frustration and rage when it has failed.”

– Excerpted from Hicks, Stephen R. C. Explaining Postmodernism, chapter six.

https://www.quora.com/What-reservations-do-you-have-about-liberal-principles

A crime is a violation of a contract, where laws are properties of a contract for norms within a society fo people with similar goals, manners, ethics, morals, language and reproductive strategies. Even if the contract is nautural law, and even if natural law only applies to people within a government, not across governments.  Human rights are a post-war extension of natural rights.  We have attempted to legitimize conquest only in those cases where those extended rights are violated. While it is arguable that natural rights existed at the time, it is also arguable that human rights did not exist at the time.

But since none of these contracts apply, conquest is not a crime. There was no contract. The reason for conquest, whether by violence, or immigration, or import of religion, or revolution, is to replace one set of rights and obligations with another set of rights and obligations.

You may dislike conquest. You may argue in retrospect that we should not conquer primitive peoples. You may argue that we should not conquer primitive peoples even if we are more beneficial conquerors than any of our competing conquerors, and therefore commit the lesser of evils.

Conquest is not a crime unless immigration, new religion, new political parties, are a crime. Immigration, religion and political parties are implemented under the threat of violence, and therefore the only difference is the rate and means by which one conducts conquest, and the rapidity at which rights, obligations and the allocation of property is rearranged. 

It is not clear that the french revolution, and its bloody excesses, nor the philosophy that it created, which led to marxism, and 100M murderous deaths because of marxism was not a conquest. It was. And nothing good came of it.

Conversely, it is quite clear that the conquest spread by anglo-empirical-science, acounting, property rights and capitalism were a conquest, that in turn, raised billions out of mysticism, ignorance and poverty.

https://www.quora.com/Has-the-Canadian-government-ever-acknowledged-the-country-formation-was-a-crime