—“Issuing guaranteed loans that can never be discharged to the cognitively deficient, mass producing baristas with $100k degrees, has effectively created a serf class out of what could have been productive lower middle-middle class workers with apprenticeships and vocational preparation. If that’s not moral hazard I’m not sure what is.”—Joseph Smith
by William L. Benge .
So then boundaries defining internality vs externality in our case are not any sort of artificial “cultural construct” but derive from actual tests which transpired and were recorded over a very long period of time, and thus gradually formed into the official unique history belonging only to our group, with it’s special peculiar narrative and body of legal and moral precedents which also systematically evolved into wise, time-tested, sensible norms.
RIGHTFUL CONSUMPTION V INTERLOPER
What we now observe in modernity, however, is disruption and interference with this consumption, via confusion and noise created (and designed with malice) to interrupt/ prevent/ hinder our enjoyment of these benefits and for nefarious ends. For theft. Cultural, habitual theft.
The lessers covet our more? O definitely.
The boundaries we refer to or hint at/ suggest are not in any way illegitimate, artificial but the opposite. As a concept, these delineations we speak of are immutable.
Therefore, anyone offending them must know they do so at a price.
—“The main problem of western civilization is humanism (automatic attribution of human traits to inhuman people).”— Günther Shroomacher
—“Eugenics, in the vernacular, often equates to needless discretionary euthanasia. Eugenics via negativa would consist of eliminating and preventing dysgenic policies and practices i.e. the welfare state etc. Eugenics via negativa is eugenic by not practicing dysgenics. — Bill Joslin
—“No society is rich enough to artificially prop up a nation indefinitely via education or instruction. A high IQ just makes it cheaper.”— Lisa Outhwaite
—“Hierarchy (A Pack) requires only that you seek your position. There is no fear of exclusion, only change in position. Equality (A Herd) has no position so one is either in and conforming our out for not. This is the origin of male(conservative) female (liberal) minds, and their cognitive, moral, and political biases.”— CD
—“Packs survive by fighting together and protecting each other, regardless of position in the hierarchy. Herds survive by fleeing and leaving the weak behind.”— Andy Lunn
—“The rothbardian argument originated in a bias to favor the concentration of savings for the purpose of redeployment as usury over the utility of credit. (yes, really, that’s the reason)”— CD
—“Politics boils down to generation of demand in response to intuitions of genetic self-interest. Why? IDEOLOGICAL explanatory power is less explanatory than BIOLOGICAL explanatory power.”—Butch Leghorn
—“The internet is revealing TRUTH in a way that humanity has never before seen, and the effects will change us as a species.”—Noah J Revoy
—“Find the sacred, and you’ll likely find ignorance. For the sacred is that which we hold above criticism, thus removing our best means of education.”—Skye Stewart
—“10,000 hours and all that. Novelty is exploration. Repetition is refinement.”—Ely Harman
—“Novelty seeking is the preoccupation of those who lack the ability to master.”—Noah J Revoy
by Dax Rayner
—“Libertarianism is simply marxism for the commons instead of marxism for private property.” —Curt Doolittle
I’ve been thinking a lot about this statement the past few months and I see it more and more every day now that I’m paying attention to it, every time I’m in a libertarian thread or discussion.
Coming from a libertarian-ish/Ayn Randian worldview myself for much of my life, I began to really heavily question libertarianism the past few years. Anyone who’s known me for awhile can probably tell my positions have shifted quite a bit on many things. It just became glaringly obvious to me that there were a lot of holes and discrepancies between libertarian theories and what we see happening in the real world. I know many others have felt the same way.
I’ve just started scratching the surface of propertarianism as defined by the Propertarian Institute but so far it has given me incredible clarity on the problems I was seeing before with libertarianism that I lacked the operational language to describe.
Simply put: It seems the core problem of libertarianism can be boiled down to mismanagement of the commons, and that is why marxism has run rampant through the education system, pop culture and liberal establishments.
The irony here is that when libertarians talk about the tragedy of the commons it seems they have actually misinterpreted what that means and the REAL tragedy of the commons, at least in the modern West, is an inversion of their analysis. The solutions they propose are not only incorrect but simply not possible. Many libertarians seem to misunderstand or miscategorize what the commons is or in some cases, deny that it even exists at all.
There’s a lot of things that made me begin challenging libertarianism from borders to foreign policy to trade but ultimately what really pushed me over the edge was libertarianism’s complete ineptness and total impotence at countering the societal cancer of social justice warriorism and marxist feminism.
Not only has libertarianism been an abysmal failure at using individualism to effectively thwart leftist authoritarians and SJWs, but in many ways it’s directly contributed to the problem and is even actively working to suppress real solutions to the problem.
I believe this comes down to, again, mismanagement of the commons, as well as gaping holes in the NAP which I’ve seen for a long time, but furthermore an incomplete understanding of what property actually is and inadequate property norms, which I didn’t begin to understand until coming across propertarianism.
If you owned a 30 unit apartment complex and you hired a property management company to take care of it and they allowed the place to turn into a complete dump, with people crapping all over sidewalks, throwing trash on the lawn, etc would you continue to work with that property management company?
That’s basically what libertarianism has given us.
Luke Weinhagen also said it well:
“The way it hit me was that libertarianism survives/exists by miscategorizing relations. Specifically libertarians interpret commons(cooperation) as commons(conflict) and use property rights(IVP) to attempt to resolve that conflict. In doing so they justify libertarianism’s parasitism of the commons(that can only be generated via cooperation) as defense and that justification requires it not suppress any parasitism of the commons(cooperation) as this would self destruct the ideology.”
I’m writing a 4 Part series on this that I’m putting on minds.com to elaborate my thoughts on it. I’m still an amateur when it comes to political science and legal theory but having started, run and sold numerous companies in the digital publishing world over the last decade and a half I’ve dealt with my share of intellectual property issues, so I’m writing from that perspective in addition to my other research. I know this has been a particular sore spot for many other internet marketers as well. Just based on my own personal experience and observations, I would say a loose form of libertarianism is kind of the default political philosophy for a good amount of people in the sales and marketing world I come from. It just naturally appeals to our independent entreprenur/anti-corporate personality. But I think if a lot of people looked into it more they may find the propertarian definitions of property to be much more all encompassing, useful and applicable to the real world, as I have.
Propertarianism has added a whole new dimension of understanding for me when it comes to asset classes, brand protection, diversification & portfolio management.
If you’re a business owner or individual who’s using the ideology and school of libertarianism/AnCapism as your property management company, I might encourage you to consider reevaluating your relationship with them.
They may not be caretaking your family’s future, your community, your assets and your retirement as well as you’ve been led to think.
September 30 at 5:41 PM
In any actually existing system there is going to be some unequal but non unitary distribution of *actual* power (strength, weapons, numbers, resources, wealth, charisma, influence, etc…)
So I just think it’s best if the *procedural* distribution of power (voting protocols or whatever) matches that as closely as possible.
If your civic religion says we’re all equal and our votes count the same, or we’re all subordinate to an absolute and unquestionable führer, neither of those things is that close to being true, and so there will be huge incentives for someone with the ability, to disrupt, upset, ignore or overthrow the established procedures and institute ones more beneficial to them.
It’s fundamentally unstable to structure institutions around false articles of faith or sacred cows. In exact proportion to their falsehood; It’s merely an invitation for chaos…
by Bill Joslin
Repost from October 1, 2017 ·
Re: parasitism, immorality, predation etc…
First thing to get is that predation, parasitism and cooperation are all natural consequences of the same natural phenomena – life must seek asymmetrical benefit to survive.
From there – cooperation because it multiplies agency through aligning agents, opposed to predation and parasitism which reduces net agency, provides the only strategy (application of natural phenomena) which has an unlimited time horizon.
Predation ends when the prey have been consumed – the more successful the predator the more likely the prey supply is reduced to zero; the more successful the parasite the more degradation of the hosts health.
Predation and parasitism cap their success – their success increases their limits to success. Cooperation, however, when success increases, limits decrease.
When we extend the interpersonal strategy (cooperation) to our pool of resources (environment- including social=material, intellectual) our extraction of asymmetrical benefits increases the health of the pool of resources (stewardship) woof.
via Carl Onni
“Finally, a relation between pride, testosterone, and the willingness to engage in “cheap” behavior also fits the observation that the five inmates with the lowest testosterone levels in a sample of 87 female prison inmates were characterized as “sneaky” and “treacherous” by prison staff members”
Dabbs J, Hargrove M (1997) Age, testosterone, and behavior among female prison inmates. Psychosom Med 59: 477–480.
View Article Google Scholar
—“If your goals are realized in the US, what (do you believe) would be the effect on global hegemony? Is this speculation worthwhile?”—
Yest the speculation is worthwhile because external effect is part of the desired outcome.
Lets assume one of four initial reactions:
1 – External actors will become more confident in world affairs and more critical of US activity in the world.
2 – external actors will support the activity of activists
3 – external actors will seize opportunities for political expansion of influence.
4 – external actors will seize opportunities for military expansion of influence.
The degree of change in the world will be dependent upon those actions and the outcome of a revolutionary change:
1 – acquiescence by the state and restoration of the powers of the states.
2 – continuing declining low level civil warfare and related economic decline
3 – a significant uprising that forces the military to enact martial law .
4 – a significant uprising that forces the military to call troops from abroad to american soil.
By and large the balance of powers will be restored,and either way america will return to a domestic rather than imperial power.
Since everyone KNOWS this, particularly the upper levels of the military, the objective (my objective) is to make revolutionary outcome so certain that the government merely meets our demands for devolution to the states.
It is pretty hard to object to my proposal other than out of job defense or collusion with the world’s (((globalist))) movement.
We will own the blue water navy for a long time to come. We will lose and want to lose our responsibility for defending europe. That will force germany and russia to work together and end our conflict.
China much like russia operates entirely for its domestic market. The usa operates for its globalist market. we just need to restore the balance of powers and then we can all focus on the only remaining enemy to the world: judaism-islam.
(important piece, core)
1) Judges are forced to adjudicate between customary law, regulation, and legislation during a period of rapid social, economic, and political upheaval. In science for example, there is no temporal pressure to decide. In conflict there is temporal pressure to decide. The state has taken on the monopoly of the application of violence, and created a monopoly method of dispute resolution (courts), and created a monopoly body by which to adjudicate such conflicts (law, legislation, and regulation.)
2) There exists only one universal law of human cooperation. We call that law ‘natural law’. That natural law consists in reciprocity. Reciprocity requires satisfaction of the criteria (a) fully informed, (b) productive, (c) warrantied, (d) voluntary transfer, (d) free of imposition of costs upon the interests of others by externality. One can obtain an interest by bearing a cost (performing an improvement) for the purpose of obtaining an interest; and one can have no interest until one has born a cost to obtain such an interest.
3) This one law (reciprocity) provides decidability independent of opinion, preference, custom, or presumption of good, and is the reason international law is governed by reciprocity it is the only rule that provides reciprocal (equal) incentive against retaliation for the imposition of costs upon one another. Law evolved, from the first record, to the present, for the purpose of preserving the volume, velocity, and returns on cooperation, and preventing cooperation’s opposite: retaliation cycles that throughout history have produced the deleterious effects of feuds.
4) Customary Law (especially germanic, if not all european) consists of the discovery and accumulation of applications of this law of reciprocity that we call Tort law. Legislation (command) and regulation (prior constraint) have been given the FORCE of LAW by those whose profit interest – either the population (preservation of returns on cooperation) or the territorial rulers (returns from taxation).
5) The primary function of RULE has been the preservation of cooperation by use of organized violence to suppress impositions of costs upon the investments of others. This is the role of insurer of last resort of Personal Interests.
6) The primary function of GOVERNMENT has been the construction of commons and the extraordinary returns produced by commons, while insuring those commons from privatization of commons, socialization of losses into the commons, by the organized use of violence. This is the role of insurer of last resort of the Commons.
7) The primary function of the STATE, particularly with the advent of paper currency, and now fiat (unbacked) currency (our money consists of nothing but shares in the economy) has increasingly evolved to function as the insurer of last resort against the Hazards of the vicissitudes of nature (disasters, tragedies, accidents, disability, health, old age, and even war).
8) Rights can only exist (a) by reciprocal exchange of the same obligation, and (b) when insured by a third party with sufficient organized violence to insure and reinforce them. Otherwise they are not rights but impositions by means of command. It is correct to say we create a market ‘demand’ natural rights, and we create a market demand for human rights, but those rights do not exist until we organize sufficient violence into roles and institutions to insure those rights: police, sheriffs, soldiery, and judges.
9) Human rights consist of AMBITIONS that we demand from the Governments of States in order to tolerate their retention of a monopoly of control over a territory. They exist as a postwar attempt to constraint governments to improving their territory, people, and assets by market means, without imposition upon their neighbors. Such rights, likewise, do not exist. But are merely an ambition.
10) The universal declaration of human rights contains a few provisions that were necessary to obtain the signatures of the then-communist states, that asserted positive rights (obligations to provide for one another without constraint on the reproduction that exhausts the ability to provide for others, and therefore results in the gradual dysgenic decline as we reverse thousands of years of upward redistribution of reproduction back down to the underclasses who are not able to produce sufficient market goods and services to exist without harming the reproduction of the middle and upper classes.) [note: we have reversed the flynn effect and have, even in china, been losing a third of a point of intelligence over a fairly short number of years. The productivity of a people is reducible to the median of the population’s cost of education and training, such that every point below what is today’s 105 and tomorrow’s 110 places an intolerable burden upon the rest of the polity.]
8) Our American constitution persisted the anglo saxon, germanic, proto-germanic (and possibly proto-indo-european) law of sovereign men limited to acts of reciprocity, and licensed the government to act in their interests to preserve their sovereignty (the original text being ‘life, liberty, property’). Unfortunately at the time the techniques of formal logic, strict constriction from first principles, were not known. We are no longer limited, and there is no reason any and every law cannot be constructed formally from the natural law of reciprocity, producing a complete, consistent, and easily falsifiable body of adjudicatable law. There is no reason any and every act of legislation, and any and every act of regulation, cannot be so constructed. The principle difference under such formal construction is that the one law, discovered application of the one law, regulation to limit hazards of those actions not open to restitution, and CONTRACTS for the production of commons would be consistent, and as such the government could only issue contracts under law, not edicts above that law. (This would destroy the left’s ability to usurp power by democratic means).
9) The uniqueness of western civilization is reducible to (a) a militia that constitutes the shareholders, (b) individual sovereignty of shareholders, (c) the demand for truth, duty, and reciprocity from one another in mutual insurance of our sovereignty. (d) And sovereignty results in the necessity of markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, and polities. (e) such markets, adjudicated by the law of tort, adapt to change faster than all other methods of human organization. (f) it is this rapidity of adaptation and resulting insulation from corruption and rent seeking that made the west develop faster than the rest in both the ancient world and the modern, with the Abrahamic Dark Age of the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim attacks on the great civilizations, providing the only hindrance. Once north sea trade was reestablished, the saxon commercial order constructed in europe, and the atlantic opened to the age of sail, the west was finally, by the age of napoleon, able to return to Roman levels of institutional sophistication, and universal imposition of law. [note that the west had fertile lands and forests but no flood river valleys to concentrate production, concentrate people, and develop taxation. So while the ancient world could form armies by taxation, western people had to form militias that relied on advanced (at the time) technology that required whole families to pay for. These militias (cattle raiders, sea peoples, vikings, pirates, european explorers ) organized expeditions (raids) but did so voluntarily. There was no other means of organizing other than contract. It was this order that led to our law, our debate, our reason, and from there our science and technology. Western excellence is due to our law – which elsewhere is not contract but command.
10) The progressives lie to mask what is merely theft – they rely on postmodernism (lying by sophistry), and they rely on marxism (pseudoscience) as well as freudian and boazian pseudoscience. So yes, the Progressives (socialists) lie, but the Conservatives (Aristocratics) cannot tell the truth: The truth is quite simple: the reason for the success of western and eastern civilization, and most obviously the ashkenazim, is the upward redistribution of reproduction, and the use of manorialism, taxation, and the vicissitudes of nature to limit the reproduction of the underclass until such point that surpluses are sufficient to continually increase the standard of living through continuous market competition and innovation. Man was not oppressed. The man self domesticated through the same process he used for plants and animals: breeding the best and culling the rest. This is the dirty secret of civilizations.
11) Sovereignty, Truth, Duty, and Reciprocity produce markets, and markets are eugenic. They are just a peaceful form of eugenics rather than war, enslavement, enserfment. By use of Sovereignty, Truth, Duty, Reciprocity, and Markets western man in the ancient world, and in the modern, dragged humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, infant mortality, early death,
12) The chinese are not so inhibited as we are. they do not care about markets other than in their ability to preserve their racially homogenous polity, and return themselves to position of world power to do so. They are actively researching methods of direct improvement while event their one child policy did not help the ongoing decline in the distribution of intelligence. We are doing the opposite, which is undermining the very reason for our evolutionary success, ad the means by which we dragged mankind out of darkness, and we are doing it through immigration of those very peoples who we have spent thousands of years eliminating from our polities. As far as I know anglicans and ashkenazim remain at parity, but the anglos otherwise have lost a full standard deviation or more since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Even the Norwegians are in distributional decline.
13) The most profitable action any polity can take is to institutionalize benevolent eugenics, and that is to pay the underclasses not to reproduce, and to limit all immigration to skilled professionals, and to push the young and old into the labor force in the less demanding occupations. This is the lesson of our experiment with universal democracy and marxist-postmodernist globalism: dramatic reversal of centuries of civic improvement. At present only the east asians are willing to pay the costs of retaining their accumulated achievements. The eugenicists were right and in retrospect it appears that the Boas, Marx, Freud, Frankfurt, and French Postmodern movements were but reactions against Darwin, Maxwell, Menger, Spencer, and Nietzsche. And the entire postwar period has been nothing but a pseudoscientific and pseudo-rational attack on western civilization – an effort to repeat the destruction of the civilizations of the ancient world by the same means – false promises. This time with pseudoscience and pseudo-rational sophisms using the major media instead of supernatural sophisms using roman roads and greek writing.
The Propertarian Institute
People will rally around a plan that includes sufficient incentives, and sufficient detail, that they can themselves operate without relying upon desperation and luck.
A Moral License. (you have one)
A Set of Demands
A Plan of transition
A Means of altering the status quo
it will come this year I think.
—“When the world ends, do you think it’s gonna look like a lush paradise as God promised, or look like the planet is beyond ravaged?”—
There are no gods, they are mere fictions men invented so that we can lie to ourselves about being a transitory life form that must struggle to survive, and use the comfort of that lie to manipulate people politically rather than educate them so that they can act rationally to improve their condition, or welcome the end to their discomfort.
The planet will turn to ash first because the sun will expand.
The planet will be destroyed and absorbed by the sun after it expands.
The sun will collapse and take everything with it at the end of its life.
We are in adulthood of our star and do not have unlimited time to get off the planet.
IMO: Programming will help you think linguistically better than all other forms of reasoning combined, other than physics. Once you have physics and programming you have a formal logic of thinking about the real world and the verbal world. Once you have a BASIC understanding of economics as just ‘delayed’ physics (equilibrium), then you have the world at your feet.
Programming, as Minsky said, was A NEW WAY OF THINKING for mankind. It is not mathematical thinking or language thinking as much as scientific thinking.
1 – Reasoning (unconstrained) -Associations
2 – Logical Thinking (constrained, non operationally constrained) – Sets – Consistency, Non Contradiction
3 – Operational Thinking (constrained, operationally constrained) – Operations – Operational Possibility.
Operationalism: The absence of inference, and all the negative consequences of it.
(NOTE: Banned on Facebook for this post)
Women are wonderful, and superior at the same things men are not. The problem was extending the franchise without producing a market for differences between the genders in the production of commons.
We created houses for the aristocracy(monarchy), nobility(lords), middle class (commons). But when we added labor (labor), and then added women(women), we did not add houses for them, and thereby failed to grasp what we had done: created a market for the production of commons between the classes that prohibited the abuse by any in gaining majority.
The problem was, that people become increasingly incompetent in matters of the day as their responsibilities decline.
So without requirements for children and property it is almost impossible to create a civil discourse and market between the classes – since the people in the market for commons must demonstrate prior ability to succeed in markets of voluntary cooperation.
Men do not cheat to ‘trade up’ so much as satisfy the need, which is not much different (any really) from drug addiction. Women cheat to see if they can trade up, and are willing to trade up (for financial reasons). Women are likely to forgive for financial reasons whether they love or not. Men are more likely to forgive because they love their wives (and loyalty) women are less likely to forgive because they are less likely to love their husbands (devotion), since their devotion almost entirely to their kids. (Really).