[A] test, by a rational actor, of existential possibility independent of involuntary transfer by externality defeats most pretense of morality.
[I]f I am correct, and that all emotions are reflections in change in state of property en toto, then all statements of experience are objectively describable independent of statements of experience. And differences in experience are differences in evolutionary strategy. And evolutionary strategies can be decided meritocratically.
This knowledge is as dehumanizing as the insights of Darwin, Copernicus, Galileo, Machiavelli, and Aristotle. That does not mean it is not true. I am just as certain that it is, as they were of their own statements.
This does not prevent us from making compromises. It merely prevents the state from imposing involuntary compromises upon us.
The individual cares how he feels Others care how he feels We can learn how someone feels. But we cannot decide a conflict based upon how someone feels. Feelings are a gauge, but a gage of individual demand for acquisition and retention and that is all.
[T]here is a high cost to truth telling. I am entirely aware of the burden we must pay for physical defense of the realm, physical defense of life and property, normative defense of civic behavior, and defense of the informational commons. But in each case the costs produce extraordinary returns.
If we require truthfulness, invasive religions and ideologies cannot Proselytize any unscientific statements – at least using the commons. And alternative rules of law are violations of natural law and pseudoscientific encouragement of theft and fraud.
Truth is Enough. Truth and Violence allowed us to construct commons. Truth and violence are enough to restore us.
Truth. Violence. Persistence.
Lies and cowardice. Genocide.
[E]liminate demand for the state and we shall have no moral cause for the state. Law must evolve as fast as a polity. The common law can.
To eliminate the arbitrary discretion of authority, eliminate demand for arbitrary discretion by using the common law and property.
Any conflict that cannot be resolved under the common law of property rights creates demand for authority’s arbitrary discretion.
Polylogism, polylegalism, polyculturalism, polytheism, polytribalism: political conflict, economic conflict, undecidability of conflicts.
[A]nd always have been.
For over a thousand years, a multitude of nations, states, peoples, cultures, religions, and empires have attempted to coexist with Islam. None have succeeded. We will not be the first.
If you have a few percent of Muslims, you have what you can pretend is a major crime problem. If you have ten to thirty percent, you have a low level civil war, which intermittently becomes a high level civil war whenever you relax or show signs of weakness. If you have thirty percent, you can have a fairly tense peace, like the not-quite-war in Mindanao if you have a large well disciplined military, guards and soldiers everywhere, and regularly and routinely deploy death squads, but you cannot afford rule of law – you can have peace only by ruthlessly and unhesitatingly applying the laws of war. With a large Muslim minority you need death squads and the routine and frequent application of torture to keep the almost-peace, the not-quite-war.
France has five or ten percent Muslims, regular car burnings, Calais has been burning for some time, and the French state has no power over substantial areas that have been successfully seized by Islam.
France has taken pretend measures – checking passports at major entry points. This is security theater. Calais continues to burn, and the French authorities avert their eyes. Muslim illegal immigrants continue to flood over the borders unopposed. Rapes by Muslims are piously ignored. Preachers continue to preach terror, and while Muslim preachers preach terror, the French authorities arrest and prosecute Marine LePen and Eric Zemmour for incitement. A Muslim that gets over the border cannot be deported.
Far from France getting serious about stopping terror, it remains a criminal offense to advocate getting serious about the problem.
Under recent international law you cannot return people unless their country of origin agrees to accept them, or at least that is how international law has recently come to be interpreted. And the countries of origin never agree. Australia and Israel have been cheerfully breaking this law, and New Zealand has been furtively breaking it. Burma has been dumping Muslims into boats and telling them that if they want to live under Islam, start sailing to a Muslim country.
When France rounds up illegals and dumps them in Africa or the Middle East, then France will be beginning to get serious. But no one can imagine such a thing, let alone propose it, for to imagine such a thing is a thought crime.
France is absolutely unserious about dealing with terrorism, and to even think seriously about dealing with terrorism is a crime no Frenchman will admit to committing.
The only good Muslim is a bad Muslim. If a Muslim is not murdering innocents and raping children, he does not take his religion seriously.
Reframe: DEVELOPING/DEVELOPED Should be restated as High Trust vs High Corruption. This would more clearly address the cause of differences.
WORDS MATTER: “The High Trust World vs the Low Trust World.” We can implement fiat money and credit but not high trust. (ie: common law)
1) The history of man is of the evolution of increasing levels of aggression, exterminating the prior family, tribe, race, species.
2) The history of western man is the incremental suppression of free riding, idleness, impulsivity and aggression by violence.
3) The success of the west in ancient and modern eras was by truthfulness, productivity, martial excellence, and aggressive eugenic suppression.
4)”Pareto is Everywhere”. A population above the median IQ of 106 is necessary for libertarian modernity. Lost via dysgenia.
5) The problem for any tribe is to raise top 20% over ~122. Economic velocity, trust, morality decrease rapidly with losses.
6) Asymmetry of property is necessary to construct the voluntary organization of production. Inequality is a necessary good.
7) Current leftist economic theory attempts to discover the minimum inequality necessary for the preservation of incentives.
8) Under the assumption that the increased risk and decreased flexibility and increased busts can be limited by fiat credit.
9) The result is r-selected dysgenia and decreasing ability in the pool (slightly offset by improvements via education in sciences) given that
10) the unemployability problem increases with the Flynn effect – meaning that even if we find additional ways of improving demonstrated human intelligence we cannot move employment further up the curve without decreasing rates of dysgenic underclass reproduction.
11) We cannot both have immigration and transfer of reproduction from our best to our worst.
12) We increase unemployability and increase inequality, and construct a dysgenic caste system on the south american and hindu model, rather than an ever-increasing-equality under the eugenic western aristocratic model.
13) We have recreated the problem of the roman conquest which is increasing productivity through trade to the point where the upper classes cannot withstand shocks because we are in insufficient numbers.
14) The limit to any right to profit is that which imposes an intertemporal cost on the genetics, commons, institutions, norms of the polity. Theft from the future may be profitable, but it is merely theft.
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute