By Allen Freeman
From the first time, hundreds of thousands of years ago, that a man picked up a shiny rock and decided it was his, the earth has had individual property.
From the first time, tens of thousands of years ago, that a group of men claimed a cave as their own, and agreed to use violence to defend it from outsiders, we have had group property.
These two concepts, individual and group property, when taken together, add up to the historical understanding of what is private property. When we look at them, we can see a common thread which links different kinds of private property together. That common thread is the willingness to use violence to defend them.
In the case of the Shiny rock, it became individual property when a man decided that it was his, and he would not allow another to take it from him. In the case of the cave, it became group property when the men decided it was theirs and they would defend it from others. All future cases of private property stem from these first discoveries of property, in that property becomes private when a man, or a group of men, decide they are willing to use force to defend it.
Property, as such, can be clearly defined, it is “That which a man or a group of men will use violence to defend.”
For thousands of years of human history, private property, whether private goods, resources, or land, were the primary cause for most all wars and violent interactions between men. Throughout these wars and interactions, men discovered that there were many different classes and forms of property which they were willing to defend.
Property-in-Toto is a catchall term which comprises all of the many forms of property which were and are of concern to men. Everything which falls under the umbrella of Property-in-Toto shares one trait: Men are willing to use violence to keep others from stealing, destroying, or causing harm to it.
There are many forms of simple property, from the rock a man picks up, to the spear he made with his own two hands. These were, in most cultures, nearly beyond dispute.
There was land, which was easy to claim, but was harder to defend or show claim to if it was vast acreage.
There was communal property, which might come in the form of a well, a shrine or religious building or location, or communal village land.
There were also more complicated cases of property like parents and children, and husbands and wives, and a man owning himself, where one would definitely use violence to defend what he felt was his, but those defended also had their own free will.
Another class of property all its own is that of Intangible property. Intangible property exists inside the realms of both personal and group property. Intangible property exists in ideas or information which men are willing to defend, such as a man’s reputation, or the reputation of a man’s family or ancestors. These things may not be tangible in such that you can point at or identify them, but they exist as property because men are willing to defend them with violence, often times even more so than the more tangible types of property.
A myriad of methods were developed to help deal with these types of property and the situations that developed around them.
It became a standard of most societies that a private item held by a man in his hand or his home, such as a spear or a shirt, were his, and it was considered a violation of him to take them from him.
When it came to land, it was generally considered to belong to a man if he could show investment into it. If you farmed it, cleared it, or otherwise used it, it was yours, and most would consider it theft if another took it or the fruits of your labor upon it from you.
Communal property was easier to define and protect, as it carried with it the threat of force from a group instead of an individual. There were often squabbles amongst the group as to the rights to and responsibility to community property within the group, but outsiders knew that they should not interfere unless they were willing to be met by force.
With parents and children, it was generally considered that children were the property of the parents until they were old enough to care for themselves. This belief was tempered by what the people in the local culture felt was appropriate treatment of children, as the welfare of future generations affected all in a survival culture.
The property relationship between husband and wife was tempered by each sides ability to leave and divorce, something most parties have had access to throughout history. So while a wife may have been property in the realm of defense and rights, it also carried a responsibility to provide for her and her children and treat them well, or she might decide that leaving was a better option for them.
The property relationship of a man to himself became one of utmost importance, a man owned himself, and was both free to make his own choices on what to do with himself, and free to reap the consequences of those choices, good or bad, a man was his own sovereign, he owned himself, and was free.
Understanding of the more intangible forms of property varied wildly from culture to culture, but in general physical violence was not frowned upon in a legal sense for violations of such.
What we consider to be “morality” is nothing more than a reciprocal agreement between members of a culture for dealing with various forms of property. These became codified as a type of unwritten law that all men must either respect, or risk having violence used against them.
These combined forms of property, from tangible physical, to intangible, to land, to relationships, to a man owning himself, have, as Property in Total (Property-in-Toto), formed the basis for all human rights, government relationships, and normative morality throughout all of human history. Private property is the true historical basis for all of what we consider to be modern morality, for all of what we call human rights, and for all of the interactions we as men share with other men and with government. Property-in-Toto is the basis for our entire culture as we know it.
Download PDF: PropertarianCoreConcepts
A Brief Introduction to Propertarianism
(Propertarianism’s Core Concepts for Libertarians.)
by Eli Harman
What is Propertarianism?
Propertarianism is a scientific, rational, empirical, approach to understanding and analyzing human behavior, incentives, norms, institutions, cooperation and conflict originated by Curt Doolittle and developed by him in cooperation with others.
In all cases, in all eras, among all peoples, 1) an homogenous population, 2) markets, 3) rule of law (tort law, not legislation), 4) and the resulting end of corruption generates good conditions.
A diverse population, lack of markets, rule by discretion, generate corruption, and result in bad conditions.
You need to understand the Pareto Rule. 1% of people determine everything. 19% of people organize the remaining 80% of people so that it gets done.
This is why always and everywhere 80% of wealth is in the possession of 20% of the people. Because that distribution (a power law) is required to provide people with incentives to do something constructive rather than prey upon one another. (really). Slavery, and serfdom are actually expensive. Freemen are profitable. Citizens are more profitable. Universal citizenship appears to have been a mistake.
The origin of all orders is the organized application of violence to deny anyone the alternatives.
It takes about .0001% of adult males to change the political order by the use of violence.
Hence, the armed militia rules, and the government is merely operating within the tolerances of that militia.
That is why anglo peoples have frequent small revolutions that do little other than modify the *written* social contract, we now call the constitution.
The NRA funcitons as the political arm of the militia. They negotiate with the governemtn on behalf of the militia.
The alternative is to end the government, for violating the constitution created by the militia.
Which is what we are very close to doing.
—-”Why is America so complicated?”—-
Because the experiment in middle-class rule, using the single law of reciprocity (natural law), with all legislation strictly constructed from that single law of reciprocity, and the darwinian and maxwellian revolution that explained it has been systematically undermined beginning with the civil war, exacerbated by excessive immigration in the 1920’s, and expressly so since the 1960s failure of world communism, and its replacement by postmodernism (denial of sciences).
In other words.
1 – We had a Perfect Government of the classes, and states, under rule of natural law (reciprocity). A monarchy as a judge of last resort, commercial nobility representing the states, and small business owners representing their families.
2 – Instead of adding a house of ‘labor’ then a house of ‘women’, and continuing the use of houses as markets for production of commons between the classes, we created a monopoly under the pretense of democracy, and thus single class (underclass) rule.
3 – Since the underclass can never organize, produce, manage, or govern, the and since the priesthood was disenfranchised under the scientific revolution, a new secular priesthood evolved out of the academy using liberalism(activism), then marxism (underclass), socialism (working class), and postmodernism(clerical class), and feminism (single motherhood) with pseudoscience and the false promise of prosperity under the secular priesthood control, replacing supernaturalism and the false promise of prosperity after death under the supernatural priesthood’s control.
4 – And as such we live in a world of lies.
The correct if unpleasant answer.
- All groups that cannot, do not, or slowly integrate and compete are marginalized (disciplined). And furthermore, they should be, until they integrate so thoroughly that the marginalization (discipline for non conformity) does not exist, because the cost of their integration does not exist.
- Groups disrespect(discipline, outcast, or boycott,) competition with (against) their traditions, norms, status, and laws. And there is good reason to do so: they are paying a high cost of integrating underdeveloped peoples – without any benefit of doing so.
- Any group that is marginalized (disciplined, disrespected, outcast, boycotted) must have a reason for invading (moving to) a society that disciplines them. The question is, if the traditions, institutions, norms, status signals, and laws, are more desirable in the culture that they are invading, then therefore the traditions, institutions, norms, and status signals that they bring with them are de-facto ‘bad’.
- So, when in Rome do as Romans do, or do not go to Rome.
- Ergo, it depends on whether the invader (disciplined, marginalized) group is genetically problematic (ethnic) because they have an larger undomesticated under, working, or middle class, that forces the host group to bear the costs of their lack of genetic domestication – or whether they are cultural competitors (religious) that forces the host group to bear the cost of training the underdeveloped norms and traditions. Or whether they are commercial competitors, which most groups seem to tolerate as a benefit at the cost of some status signal loss. Or whether they are institutional competitors, bringing with them a competing law. Or whether they are military competitors, which all groups despise.
- It is possible to force all of the above costs on a host people: Genetic, Cultural, Commercial, Institutional(law), and Military.
That’s the answer. Groups are marginalized (disrespected, disciplined, outcast, boycotted) because they should be.
So the groups that are more marginalized (disciplined) than the others are the groups that are most costly to integrate.
And therefore “the most costly groups are those with the greatest cumulative set of costs: in the combination of genetic, cultural, commercial, institutional, and military.
(NOTE: Ergo why Islam is so costly and so universally resisted. It’s dysgenic, culturally primitive, low trust, commercially weak, imposes competing laws, is intellectually regressive and entirely anti-intellectual, and was spread entirely by violence, at the cost of destroying the four great civilizations of the ancient world, as well, as costing 500M deaths. Islam has a simple strategy which is to breed at the bottom – the inverse of the great civilizations: far west and far east.)
In general, as the single most explanatory rule of behavior “Do only that which you can pay the restitution for if you fail.” Because while unstated, it is the rule by which both legal, moral, and normative blame is determined.
They cannot pay and are not even cognizant of, the cost of restitution. And creating and bearing a child is perhaps the greatest crime moral crime, becasue it subjects family and indeed all of society, to moral hazard: they are forced to pay for your bad judgement, and the bad judgment of your parents and family, becasue they cannot morally correct your decision by killing the child. (Although that has been done frequently in history it is not done today.)
When the family was the principle unit of economic production, when we lived in intergenerational households because of it, when children began contributing to the work of the household by age five, when child mortality was as much as 50%, death in childbirth common, and the vicissitudes of life unpredictable, pregnancy uncontrollable, children disposable, and women in particular had no control over their destinies we treated children very close to domesticated animals. And none of those conditions apply today – at least, for anyone who would ask the question, or read the post.
For most of history 13–14 was the beginning of adulthood. Girls may be indeed mature enough to care for children by 16 and certainly 17 if they are under the care of an intergenerational household and began working in the household and caring for siblings from six or seven. Boys, if they are put to work by the same age, and have responsibility by 12 or 14, can be, like girls caretakers in an intergenerational household, especially if they have done any military service. But boys do not finish maturing until 22, just as girls are ending their optimum fertility (23). Our questionably effective education system has extended childhood development so much so that males are now mentally, emotionally, and socially mature only in their late twenties (if that). School is unquestionably effective through grade 5, but by grade 7 is only marginally effective. So we are effectively losing 5+ years of socialization, employment, and emotional development in order to keep children in school more than the entirely adequate 2–3 hours per day, if they participate in the work force in simple work after that (I started working holidays time at 7 years old. And by 10 and 11 worked holidays and whenever else I could. ) Under those conditions we could (as they do in eastern europe) have children earlier. Without those conditions, and perpetuating today’s environement, the single mother disaster will continue, and the boys that ‘check out of society and stay there’ will continue.
So the answer to age of sex at 13 is “Not in this current world we live in.”
Iâll try to give you the best answer possible today.
- All humans flock to opportunities, exploit opportunities, and defect from flocking to opportunities as the opportunities are exhausted and other, more preferable, opportunities emerge.
- In this sense, all human economies seek disequilibrium, because it is only in disequilibrium that opportunities exist (If we ever managed equality then we will all be poor.)
- Without credit, opportunities cannot be exploited at the lowest possible price (discount) simply because either (a) scarcity of the monetary resource, and (b) extraction of profits (premiums) and âRentsâ by savers.
( This topic is a significant point of contention, if not the central point of contention. The Rightâs position [and mine] is that itâs not clear that earning money from your savings is necessary or beneficial – only that it not be deflated. The Left/Keynesians hold the position that you do not even have any right to the stored value of your savings. The l|Libertarian position is that you have a right to âseek rentsâ as an investor using your savings. The libertarian is decidedly false since that is the means by which predatory subclasses have used high trust local norms to accumulate, centralize capital, and turn it against host peoples.)
- Credit (Promise of future repayment) assists in more people flocking to opportunities, exploiting those opportunities faster, but also defecting from those opportunities more slowly, and ending those opportunities not gradually but in a âbustâ, leaving late defectors having lost their investments and unable to fulfill their promises.
- Therefore, the question has been, and remains, how much credit to provide at what price such that opportunities are exploited *by those able to exit* but not by people who *will not be able to exit*. While economic discourse appears difficult, this is actually the central question. The answer is relatively simple, in that if we are financing a shift from one network of specialization and trade to another, then that is reducing the unnecessary friction, or if we are creating opportunity for unskilled risk, and therefore creating a moral hazard (trap).
(This topic is a significant point of contention, because it leaves most consumers out of the âlotteryâ that loose credit can create, and out of the temporary consumption that loose credit creates, and produces a moral hazard for banks and credit institutions, by forcing them to lend money during booms to stay in business then creating waves of bankruptcies during the consequential corrections.)
- There are very few substantive questions in economics. (a) The means of calculating credit price and availability is one, (b) whether we can bypass the financial sector and provide liquidity directly to citizens(consumers) without simply having landlords and creditors absorb the profits now going to the financial sector, (c) the third is purely ethical and moral: and that is, do we return to intergenerational lending (all of human history until the keynesians), so that there is a good reason to provide income on savings, or do we continue extraction of rents through the financial system by charging the citizenry to borrow against their own production, or do we, as above, end the unnecessary distribution of credit capacity (and interest) for consumer consumption by just bypassing the financial sector altogether. Every other question in economics a derivative of these questions – or it is simply the use of economic analysis to investigate demonstrated human behavior, given that the (soft) social sciences (pseudosciences) of psychology, sociology, and political âscienceâ have failed to produce any repeatable scientific findings by means of self reporting or direct testing.
Therefore, the Tulip Bubble is just a nice simple example that we use to illustrate how consumers can borrow money to invest in what they donât understand and lose it.
There are thousands of other examples, particularly in the new world, but the Tulip Bulb Bubble is more helpful because it communicates to average people that they too are vulnerable to malincentives, not just people with much more money.
In other words, invest in what you do and know, and otherwise invest in index funds. In other words, Just as Little Red Riding Hood is a lesson to young girls who would do improper things for money are certain times, the Tulip Bulb serves as a parable for consumers – do what you know, and only what you know.
Because when a white person is called a racist, they understand (a) they are being alienated by the threat of violence (b) they are being alienated so that others can achieve self image by denigrating others, (c) they are aware that only european whites and east asians have succeeded in building high trust polities. (d) they are aware the critics are just hateful and envious.
“No man is a hero to his debtors.”
And the whole world is our debtor.
We dragged makinkind one civilization at a time out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, child mortality, early death, disease, tyranny, the vicissitudes of nature, and the uncertainty of a universe hostile to human life, and they resisted, kicking and screaming all the while. All these people are doing is kicking and screaming at being dragged out of their ancestral childhoods.
A parent must never take the words of his teenagers seriously, any more than europeans must take the words of the underclasses seriously.
The Correct Answer
There are two branches of Austrian Economics, the first being Mengerian (Christian) and the second being Misesian (Jewish). The Mengerian revolution gave us marginalism, and marginalism has been fully integrated into economics.
Mises discovered in economics, what Brouwer did in mathematics, and Bridgman did in physics, and others did later in grammar: Operationalism.
Unfortunately he was a the opposite of a scientist, a poor mathematician, a worse philosopher, and he produce ‘praxeology’ as a positive pseudoscience, rather than identifying operationalism in economics as a means of falsification.
I have written extensively on the Misesian Failure, and the Rothbardian exacerbation of that failure, and how Rothbardianism attempted to conflate eastern european anarchism with western european rule of law.
There are only a few questions that separate the Jewish Austrians (Misesian-Rothbardians) from the Mainstream that has fully incorporated Austrian (Mengerian) economics.
- The moral question of whether investors have a right to appreciation of a currency or even right of defense against a currency. Mises/Rothbard’s whole program was yes, but the answer is no.
- Whether or not the good produced by the constant destruction of the value of a currency, as a means of increasing consumption in order to increase employment in order to increase overall economic velocity -outweighs the bad of consistent overextension of the boom bust cycle , and whether that over extension will eventually lead to (a) collapse, and (b) lost opportunity for innovation, adaptation, and productivity rather than booms and busts. As far as I know the answer is no.
- That does not mean that the answer ist o preserve savings – it means that the means of increasing employment is not credit but direct distribution of liquidity to consumers to do what they will, rather than trying to force that liquidity to consumers through the financial and business sectors.
Did someone really ask this question? Really. FWIW, they were both wrong. The labor theory of value is false. Subjective value is true and marginalism has overwhelmingly demonstrated so.
Smith went to his grave thinking he was right, and he was right on the absurdly irreplacable returns of cooperation. But he was wrong on the labor theory of value.
Marx went to his grave knowing he was wrong. He read the marginalists and stopped writing. But he couldn’t stop taking income from Engels, so he pretended that he kept working.
Nothing more came from Marx – because his entire premise was wrong, and history has been unkind to his legacy.
There actually aren’t any that are also true. (Really)
(No. Really. We produce “Wisdom Literature” in , mythological, theological, rational, historical, and scientific grammars: meaning rules of continuous disambiguation including disambiguation by permissible paradigms (vocabulary).)
Science produces humiliatingly parsimonious knowledge – and all of the universe and our experience in it can be explained as one continuous set of consequences from a few very simple causes.
In my study of history the number of truths is extremely small, all are knowable, and the number of falsehoods that we have invented to circumvent thought, emotion, and action that correspond with those truths is more numerous than the number of humans.
The rest of the world is being indoctrinated on French Revolutionary ethos and tactics of human rights
Does this storming of the proverbial Bastille begin to make a little more sense
As far as I know the soft (pseudo) sciences are done. Economics has taken over social and political science, and cognitive science has taken over psychology. The reason being that we are unable to report or theorize objectively in any and all aspects of life.
As Max Weber anticipated, all life is reducible to calculation and life that is not reducible is not true.
There are two major admixture events that affected north africa.
- In historical order, Egyptians consist of about 45% late east africans, 45% South caucasians, and 10% Phoenicians.
- The last major migration out of africa was about 25000 years ago. Africa is best thought of as three or four separate “continents” due to its size and geography. The mediterranean, the desert, the ‘green band’ from west africa to ethiopia/Yemen, the inhospitable south, and the south/southeast coast.
- The civilization that developed on the trade route between ethiopia and yemen gave birth to that major migration. That migration “E”, spread north and then west into north africa.
- There was an admixture event between west eurasians (Caucasians “J1″) and these peoples. Current admixture (E+J1) is about even between the two. (An interesting nit is that it’s possible north africans domesticated cattle separately. ) I am not sure of the admixture relationship between the Phoenicians and Berbers, although I am certain there are people in the world who know that. It’s not an area that I have studied. As I understand it the Phoenicians (east mediterraneans) contributed about ten percent to the current distribution. So between Red Sea origins, north African expansion, conquest by or integration with, south caucasians (people with black hair), and conquest by/integration with the Phoenicians (as well as some mixture because of the usual mediterranean trade), I think we understand most of the genetic history of North Africans.
- The Arab conquest of North Africa that destroyed North African, Egyptian, and Levantine civilizations left less genetic impression on these peoples than one would think.
- In my understanding, there has been negligible crossover between subsaharan africans and north africans because the desert and distance has been prohibitive.
- The Roman defeat of Carthage (west phoenicians) was a catastrophe for mankind just as the battle between Sparta and Athens, and between Germany(ie: sparta) and england(ie:athens) were catastrophes. We never seem to learn from history that the farmer-army and merchant-navy require each other to compete successfully
- The Arab conquest was far worse however (as it was everywhere in the world), because islam is the last civilization to adjust to the end of the Abrahamic Dark Age and the Restoration of Science (the enlightenment) and the most resistant to it – and even if we are lucky, it will take another one to two hundred years of progress to bring north africa out of its current condition.
We are very close now. Very. At this level of agitation it will take a single spark that drives one side or the other to march. And I am pretty sure it will be the next election cycle.
Um, just to add tidbits for those fascinated by genetic heritage:
Finnic peoples appear to have evolved around the Obskaya Gulf region (northern Russia near the arctic circle) as all of us seem to have evolved near waterways.
It appears that they were invaded by (enslaved by, fought with) asiatic siberians in recent prehistory.
We don’t think of it today, but the ‘eskimos’ (Inuit/Siberian/Arctic peoples) around the arctic circle were aggressive warriors and were successful at exterminating multiple tribal groups – including most of their predecessors in the new world.
North Russians (Muscovites) are about 25% finnish composition. (If you are still one of those people that think ‘breeds of humans’ are indifferent science has arleady falsified the blank slate, and is in the process of falsifying tribe, subrace, and racial similarities – and we are pretty sure we know the sources of those differences.)
Every gene study I have seen suggest that the mongol invasion had very little impact on the slavic peoples. Conversely, the slavic slave trade had a significant genetic impact on the Byzantine/Turkic population.
The region’s major gene exporter was today’s Poland, and Poles, Ukrainians, and southern Russians (who are, contrary to russian ‘historicism’, ethnic and previously linguistic ukrainians) spread throughout the territory. They do not have this Finnic and Siberian admixture.
Russia found eastern european and baltic countries too difficult to rule becasue they were more developed than ethnic russians. So the soviets moved rural russians who had been serfs (slaves) only one or two generations before, into eastern europe and the baltics as the work force.
The asiatic population of siberia is trivial. Ethnic russians dominate the population everywhere except tribal areas just as canadians host tribal communities in the north.
So we do see a bit of asiatic gene expression because of (a) russian relocation programs, (b) mongol invasion, (c) the usual territorial cross breeding, and (d) the mobility created by sail, rail, road, and the russian and soviet empires.
Terrible answers. Here is the correct one.
Belief and Faith, because of our theological heritage have been conflated quite intentionally. So we have to deconflate (disambiguate) them before we can answer the question.
A belief or reported preference refers to that which you report (state) that you understand to be True, and honestly think you will or do, act as if is True. (whether or not you actually act as such is something different.)
A demonstrated preference refers to what we do regardless of what we believe, say we believe. This is why social sciences and psychology were pseudosciences and economics was necessary to stop them from spreading pseudoscience: people demonstrate preferences when they vote or purchase things, and they report, and say they believe very differently from how they vote or purchase. Hence we use only indirectly produced information to test people’s demonstrated preferences, and nearly all surveys are to large part meaningless on anything that someone would virtue signal (Google “Virtue Signaling”).
An article of Faith requires we preserve belief (act as if true) something that is contrary to the evidence in order to preserve the value of acting in accordance with Wisdom Literature in order to achieve desirable ends, even when we don’t understand the relationship between cause and effect. In economic terms faith allows us to buy cheap options on achieving a personal or collective good, and renders one’s plans and actions invulnerable to rational and scientific persuasion. That is their value. It turns out that faith in others is the optimum strategy for producing high trust cooperation. That was just a theory until we proved it in the past century.
An ideology functions, like literature, to inspire individuals to action under democracy. Ideologies need not be rational or consistent, and are less vulnerable to criticism if they are not. Ideology is the result of our change to (limited) democracy.
A philosophy provides methods of decidability in order to achieve a desired state of affairs. The domain of philosophy is individual preferences, and interpersonal good.
A logic provides a grammar (rules of continuous disambiguation) for the testing (criticism) of sets of constant relations for internal consistency between two or more states (falsification by competition).
All disciplinary languages (grammars) from math to logic, to programming, to contract language, to common language, to fiction (and even ficitnoalisms – meaning pseudoscience, and theology) consist of variations in the rules of grammar (rules of continuous disambiguation), including variations in permissible vocabulary (paradigms).
A science provides a formal process and makes use of instrumentation for the use of measurements for the elimination of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, by the falsification (passage of testing) of categorical consistency, internal consistency, external correspondence, existential possibility, scope completeness, limits, and parsimony. If the science is a social science it must also include tests of rational choice given available knowledge and incentives (rationality), and if a matter of law, tests of voluntary reciprocity (morality)
As far as I know this is the ‘state of the art’ set of definitions.
The Propertarian Institute,
Andrew Heywood : Political Ideologies : An Introduction.
Emmanuel Todd: The Explanation of Ideology
Thomas Sowell: A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles
(The correct answer for the many well intentioned f—-ls)
Trump always and everywhere negotiates. Great negotiators are not afraid of opponents, they are thrilled by the competition. Trump is a ruthless negotiator who has made an industry out of baiting opponents, entrapping them, and then controlling them. He creates opportunity for greedy people to act greedy, traps them and the exploits them for their greediness. This is why the bankruptcies are merely a tactic he uses to entrap greedy people, and corrupt bureaucrats. Where the ignorant person sees failure, the sophisticated person sees strategy.
Trump is a competitor in the Nietzschean mold. He sees a meeting with Putin as an opportunity to learn how to win just as he sees a meeting with Kim as an opportunity to learn how to win. The worst that happens is that nothing happens. The best that happens is that he finds (as did Regan) an opportunity. He does not care about ‘face’ or your approval. He only cares about opportunities to win.
Putin is terribly rational and very simple: russians never want to repeat the 1990’s and they respect strength. He saved them from chaos and has given them self respect back. All his stunts that cause us to react are just image building. We are just a tool for him to show his people he is strong. Just as we are just a tool for Kim to demand cash when he is bankrupt. Putin is actually very weak because he is under the control of his dependence upon the export of petroleum. The difference is that Kim can starve his people and retain power, and Putin can’t. Stalin would have starved them. Putin isn’t that strong.
Trump’s point of view, and it is not false, is that Americans are weak negotiators trying to win friends and make their jobs easy at the expense of the middle american work force. His opinion (and he’s right) is that china is rising to replace us by stealing our technology and undermining our markets. It does not take skill to negotiate an agreement that is favorable to your opponents.
How do I know this. I do exactly the same thing. Why? Because Kings, Generals, and Entrepreneurs, unlike corporate heads, bureaucrats, and politicians have a constituency of one. Themselves. Some people go public to make a windfall. some of us stay private so that we remain our masters. Trump stays private to remain his own master. The only place a man can still be king is in commerce.
Very few people in contemporary life actually participate in the market economy at personal financial risk. Kings, Generals, Investors, and Entrepreneurs of every scale, do it every day.
Trump acts like a king, general, and entrepreneur because he has always been an entrepreneur, and he was trained in a military school.
He’s not looking for your approval. He’s just always testing himself to see if he can out compete. Because that is the only test that the Nietzschean man cares about: the test of the markets.
I want to add what I believe the science currently tells us about differences in group intelligence.
- Differences in demographic distribution. Rather than state that the races possess terribly meaningful differences, the data suggests pretty strongly that certain groups have expanded their middle and upper classes under agrarianism, and some have expanded their lower and subclasses under pastoralism.
- Success at Neoteny/Pedomorphism in other words, ‘self domestication’ of certain groups was more effective largely because of geography. This is why intensity and rate sexual development is the inverse of intelligence in all groups. And this is measurable by testosterone in each race and subrace. Africans a lot, steppe/desert people a bit less, caucasians quite a bit less, and east asians a lot less. Why? Early maturity is absolutely necessary in Africa if for no other reason than the disease gradient. Late maturity or reduced depth of maturity (see body odor differences between races and ages), is beneficial in the rigours of above 45th agrarianism, and the genetic underclass cannot survive the seasonal cycles.
- Balance of Dimorphism. Male and female brains differ in structure and chemistry. Verbal and spatial specializations (biases really) follow these differences. Some groups demonstrate both bias to the female reproductive strategy and verbal superiority, some balance, and some demonstrate the bias to male reproductive strategy and spatial superiority.
As far as I know all substantive differences in Homo Sapiens Sapiens are explicable by minor variations in endocrine expression both in utero and in early development.
And that our racial differences are largely due to (a) the generation we left africa or remained there, and (b) the degree of neoteny and balance we achieved during self-domestication, and (c) the number and diversity of competitors we faced in our geography.
And so far the data agrees.
(b) Putin’s only error (as a resident of Kiev myself) was in using deception of the little green men, insurrection, and propaganda rather than picking up the phone and just speaking the truth “We just can’t allow our don basin tech, and only warm water port out of our influence so we are going to step in, and ask for your support, and pay for this undesirable action with discounted gas to ukraine for 50 years. I will work to help world leaders understand why this was unfortunate necessary for the preservation of the international balance of powers.”
(c) Postwar American policy is trivially simple, but stated morally instead of descriptively:
“This can’t happen again. So:
1) we will work to force states to focus on modernization and joining the world economy, and prohibit territorial expansion, or opposition to that integration of trade.
2) We will work to support self determination to the extent that it does not violate #1 -borders and trade. This will assist in the development of economic integration and limit future wars.
3) BUT if you choose self determination and choose poorly in violation of #1 we will punish you regardless. it is this last “BUT” that Americans don’t state.
But there is nothing in that foreign policy that wasn’t stated by Burke, Smith and Hume.
The USA has a long history of criticizing the “constant wars’ of other countries. But the price of creating the international order is policing contradictions of it. And so the USA became what it despised. Because all empires have no other options. Rule by commerce, rule by violence, rule by deceit (religion).
You don’t have to agree with me. You just have to follow me for a year or two until you understand how to use the methodology. And the veil will drop from your eyes. I see it over and over and over again. Not only in the people who agree, but those who understand but disagree, and go on to use it in their own way. You will not be unaffected by Acquisitions, Testimonialism and Propertarianism. It will enable you to understand the human universe just as physics helps you understand the physical universe.
MARKETS FOR VIA-POSTITIVA IN EVERYTHING. THE ONLY MONOPOLY IS VIA-NEGATIVA DECIDABILITY: TRUTH.
Reading Pinker’s Enlightenment Now. And all it’s doing is making me angry.
Once you understand (((their))) use of Pilpul it’s like listening to Jim Jones discussing the heaven that awaits those that drink the Cool Aide.
They create moral hazard by the use of appeals to reasonableness. I have to fund a study that will demonstrate how vulnerable we are to suicide by signal.
Women do not know of what they speak, and (((those))) authors do not know of what they speak, because they do not speak from evolution, but from devolution, so that the unfit genes can prosper.
I started taking notes, but it’s …. it’s pointless. I’d have to refute nearly every paragraph.
ECONOMICS OF THE TREATY
(Note: economics in some countries means ‘business’ which means ‘gut course’. In Anglo countries, ‘economics’ refers to the measurement of behaviors, institutions, economies, policies, and investments using available data.)
The difference between Accounting and Economics is the difference between Arithmetic(accounting), Algorithms (computer science) and Calculus(economics) which is only a bit less difficult than Algebraic Geometry (physics), which is only a bit less difficult than Lie Groups(Pure Mathematics).
Economics requires the use of calculus and statistics largely for the purpose of ‘fitting’ data that doesn’t necessarily fit, because nothing you measure (no category) is causally consistent over time. This differs from Physics in which the categories we measure are constant we just don’t know what causes them (although we are slowly getting there).
Accounting is a clerical degree that the average person can obtain, and earn a middle class income.
Economics is one of the harder degrees because everything in economics is counter-intuitive, and it is math, data, (and logic) intensive.
If you are in the upper 10% of graduates, Economics is probably the highest value lifetime degree.
THE CORRECT, EVEN IF UNPLEASANT, ANSWER
If you look at the ethnicity, gender, and academic degrees of media members at all levels (you can do this without much difficulty by picking any outlet and doing a trivial bit of research), you will find obvious, ethnic, gender, and degree similarities that are unavoidable.
The attack on western civilization (nuclear family, empiricism, meritocracy, rule of law, markets in everything) has been going on for over a century. But between the postwar immigration of underclasses, and the 1965 immigration act designed specifically to undermine western civilization’s demonstrated falsification of the marxist program, and the 1965 and later invasion of the universities (sometimes at gunpoint) by the postmodernists and their pseudosciences, we have produced a vast number of ‘education, journalism, psychology, sociology, and literature’ degrees that are very little different from the majority of the clergy.
This pseudoscientific, pseudorational, and philosophical denial of empiricism, truth, and reason, serves as a secular relgiion that replaced the church and pulpit with postmodern nonsense, instead of theological nonsense.
We replaced the Military Industrial Complex and the Church with the Bureaucratic Complex and The Academy-Media Complex as the church.
It’s pretty obvious that the academy which was originally created by the church (particularly Harvard and Yale in america) simply stepped in to replace the church’s supernatural theology, with the marxist-postmodernist secular theology, with the only difference being pseudoscience and pseudorealism this time versus supernaturalism.
Data is data is data. Genders, Classes, and Groups pursue whatever group competitive strategy that they inherited from their parents and all that changes from generation to generation over the centuries is the vocabulary and excuses we make for pursuing those strategies.
Western civ evolved not first but fastest because the nuclear family, empiricism, rule of law of reciprocity, and the resulting markets in all aspects of life, both forced continuous innovation, prohibited rents (other than the church, which made most capital in europe stagnant), allowed downward migration of middle classreproduction and produced the greatest eugenic evolution outside of the ashekanzi and chinese (who did so by bureaucratic market rather than commercial means).
The evolutionary strategies of human females was to use disapproval, shaming, ridicule, and gossip to constrain alphas by organizing betas to resist them. This process continues today but in industrial form.
There is nothing more sophisticated going on, than we did with our simian ancestors. It’s all hooting, hollering, gossip and shaming to control alphas. We just have industrialized the process from storyteller, to pulpit, to the written word, to the printed word, to the electronically transmitted word.
But the apes still fling feces, while the aristocracy (paternal) creates technology, competition, markets, and law – dragging the same primitive instincts out of superstition, ignorance, poverty, starvation, child mortality, early death, disease, the vicissitudes of nature, and a universe that is by all accounts hostile to life.
It’s really trivially simple – like all of science.