photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/53004989_10157013266502264_8578855676615327744_n_10157013266492264.jpg THE OMFG Q OF THE DAY: “CAN YOU OWN P-SSY?”
Answering this ‘fringe’ stuff simply demonstrates the power of propertarian analysis. 😉 And it’s funny….. lol
—“Curt Doolittle can pu–y be property?”—Kyle Brawn
You know, under the right conditions, I would answer that question sarcastically and get hammered for it. But at the moment I have my wits about me, and I will say that:
Empirically, for almost all of history, it has been property. I am not sure it still isn’t. It’s just collective rather than private ownership.
Empirically, Given The Possible Series:
1. Possession in fact (under your control – self defense )
2. Consensual Property. (normative property – reciprocal defense)
3. Institutional Property (property rights – institutional defense)
It is possible to have ‘it’ under your control, normatively under your control, and institutional under your control.
Having ‘it’ just requires your ability to protect your control by individual, reciprocal, or institutional means.
In general it’s pretty difficult without (a) a slave population, and (b) institutional means of defending it.
Given that ‘it’ is not capable of self defense, ‘it’ doesn’t have an opinion. It is instead, the men who are willing to insure or prevent ‘ownership’ by individual, reciprocal, or institutional means that determine the outcome.
In general the outcome depends upon (a) the affordability of surplus native females willingness of native brothers and fathers to tolerate or (b) the affordability of surplus alien females and the ability of native females to rally their protecting males to prohibit the discount of their female market value by alien females.
The future has a very good chance of restoring slavery as far as I can tell, and the recent period of luxury produced by the western advances in technology may be a temporary rather than permanent progression.
That is, I think, the argument.
Hence, scarce females, protected by fathers and brothers produce high female market value, and plentiful females unprotected by fathers and brothers produce low female market value.
In other words Might Makes Rights – whether right or wrong.
Always and everywhere.
“Veritas Et Violentia”James Dmitro Makienko”Hence, scarce females, protected by fathers and brothers produce high female market value, and plentiful females unprotected by fathers and brothers produce low female market value.”
This just describes muslim/middle east christian women in Canada vs white atheist chicks. When women here were declared “persons” 100 years ago t was originally OK as the existing institutional and reciprocal means from the existing christian (50/50 catholic/ trad protestant) culture worked fine until the 60s when sexual revolutions destroyed it. The value of a patriarchal religion is in getting the women to not spread their legs and forces their emotional nature to follow men and not screw things up in the society.Feb 25, 2019, 11:51 PMCurt Doolittledoesn’t need to be religion, just law, but yes.
Religion is just shitty law, and bad education.Feb 26, 2019, 12:13 AMJames Dmitro MakienkoCurt Doolittle For women religion has some utility. Religion prevents neurotypical (non-autistic) women’s emotions from causing harm by channeling them into healthy sustainable pro-social behavior that. Emotions is what women need to care for infants. If a woman is autistic they are generally bad at caring for infants (just ask my wife), but they have a foot in both rational and emotional worlds. My wife describes it as being a man on the inside but looks like a woman on the outside. She says that non-autistic women are attracted to things like sparkles (she sells jewelry to them), art, beautiful singing etc – just like what can find in a traditional church or a mosque – as well as the community around it. They are moved by the chanting and repetition.The religion prevents women from using GSRRM on society by creating the monopoly of use of GSRRM on women – using gossip (religious myths), shaming (for emotional destructive behavior), rallying (church service), ridicule (thot patrol), moralizing (here is a moral code for you to follow). This monopoly enables men in congregation/society/polity to be in charge of politics/discourse/agency. It enables men to fight and win while keeping women faithful and not spreading legs to an army of invaders from other countries. By removing religion as a tool of redirecting GSRRM in women both politics/economics in today’s west focus on marketing to women.Feb 26, 2019, 12:37 AMCurt DoolittleJames Dmitro Makienko correctFeb 26, 2019, 12:46 AMCurt Doolittlewell done.Feb 26, 2019, 12:46 AMCurt DoolittleIf I get a chance I’ll edit and quote. too late my time. -sleeping.Feb 26, 2019, 12:46 AMJB BurnsIf you are a Chad they will tell you you own it😂Feb 26, 2019, 11:06 AMJoshua NielsenFeb 26, 2019, 8:16 PMPaul OliverI’m pleasantly surprised you’re not getting fb jailed anymore, you must have caught the rats in your friends listMar 1, 2019, 5:26 AMTHE OMFG Q OF THE DAY: “CAN YOU OWN P-SSY?”
Answering this ‘fringe’ stuff simply demonstrates the power of propertarian analysis. 😉 And it’s funny….. lol
—“Curt Doolittle can pu–y be property?”—Kyle Brawn
You know, under the right conditions, I would answer that question sarcastically and get hammered for it. But at the moment I have my wits about me, and I will say that:
Empirically, for almost all of history, it has been property. I am not sure it still isn’t. It’s just collective rather than private ownership.
Empirically, Given The Possible Series:
1. Possession in fact (under your control – self defense )
2. Consensual Property. (normative property – reciprocal defense)
3. Institutional Property (property rights – institutional defense)
It is possible to have ‘it’ under your control, normatively under your control, and institutional under your control.
Having ‘it’ just requires your ability to protect your control by individual, reciprocal, or institutional means.
In general it’s pretty difficult without (a) a slave population, and (b) institutional means of defending it.
Given that ‘it’ is not capable of self defense, ‘it’ doesn’t have an opinion. It is instead, the men who are willing to insure or prevent ‘ownership’ by individual, reciprocal, or institutional means that determine the outcome.
In general the outcome depends upon (a) the affordability of surplus native females willingness of native brothers and fathers to tolerate or (b) the affordability of surplus alien females and the ability of native females to rally their protecting males to prohibit the discount of their female market value by alien females.
The future has a very good chance of restoring slavery as far as I can tell, and the recent period of luxury produced by the western advances in technology may be a temporary rather than permanent progression.
That is, I think, the argument.
Hence, scarce females, protected by fathers and brothers produce high female market value, and plentiful females unprotected by fathers and brothers produce low female market value.
In other words Might Makes Rights – whether right or wrong.
Always and everywhere.
“Veritas Et Violentia”
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-25 19:08:00 UTC
Leave a Reply