–“race is a lousy proxy for violence”–
[T]his is empirically false in every walk of life. The reason being that the different tribes within each race have been asymmetrically successful in genetic pacification, with westerners the most successful, followed by the Japanese and Chinese. So empirically race IS an empirical signal of criminality. (Hence “The Talk”.)
In criminality – roughly speaking impulsivity and aggression and IQ determine potential criminality, although with increases in IQ, the impulsive and the aggressive merely change tactics from physical, to deceitful, to conspiratorial. In the market for goods and services all people are the color of money – although different populations are of higher risk and cost than others because of genetic pacification.
In politics people act as competing and hostile blocks each seeking higher status and privilege. This is a universally demonstrable practice since status signaling and self perception of status is the innate accounting system of mankind.
So in the market for goods and services, it is irrational to treat an individual by the properties of his class or race , and conversely it is rational in politics and social science to treat a class or race by the properties of its individuals. Because individuals act as blocks in politics. That’s the domain of politics. Just as individuals act as individuals in the market. That is the domain of the market.
Rothbardian Libertarianism is an excuse for taking discounts, just as socialism is an excuse for involuntary transfer and dysgenic reproduction. Just as neo-conservatism is an excuse for forcing costs of expansion and conquest upon others.
There are no free rides. The only liberty possible is constructed by reciprocal insurance against parasitism by the promise of organized violence to suppress it, thereby forcing all humans into the market for production distribution and trade, and forcing all humans to save for their unproductive years.
**Liberty: Every man a craftsman. Every man a merchant. Every man an investor. Every man a sheriff. Every man a Judge. Every man a Legislator. Every man a warrior. This is the only know means of constructing liberty.**
NO MORE LIES. THE TRUTH IS ENOUGH.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
—“The entire basis of Anarcho-capitalism is that reputation networks will convey information “—
[T]hat fallacy is a hack of pathological altruism. It is neither logically no empirically true. The reason being that production and consumption decrease rapidly due to the increased transaction costs with the necessity of reputation (knowledge) in a market that exists precisely because of anonymity (complexity and ignorance). And empirically we cannot find evidence to the contrary. So as long as you cannot run out of customers to cheat, it is cheaper and more rewarding to cheat customers than engage in production. (rothbardian ghetto ethics again).
The state need not regulate the market, however, to create competitive economic velocity the law must prohibit ‘cheating’. Or better stated, the legal prohibition on parasitism that violates the incentive to cooperate (thereby increasing transaction costs and decreasing economic velocity), expressed as a requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality of the same criteria, must expand with inventions of means of parasitism. The sequence of parasitism from the most direct and to the most indirect is: murder, violence, theft, fraud, extortion, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, conquest, genocide. As the division of knowledge and labor and the complexity of production increases, anonymity increases, and new opportunities for parasitism are invented, requiring the common law to respond with new prohibitions on parasitism. Well functioning markets with adequate suppression of parasitism increase trust. Poorly functioning markets function poorly because of inadequate suppression of parasitism.
If we say that we desire freedom from a parasitic government (liberty) how can we logically claim not to desire freedom from parasitic individuals (morality)? The only logical answer, if one claims both liberty, and opportunity for parasitism, is that one seeks to cheat both the commons and cheat others. As such one is simply a parasite identical to those of that populate the state and justify their parasitism with claims of the common good.
Rothbardianism is, like neo-conservatism, and socialism, a hack of our western gullibility due to pathological altruism. It’s one of the great deceits. Not as great as Socialism and particularly (pseudo)scientific socialism, and not as great in success as neo-conservatism, but certainly as well articulated as the former. IF we desire existential liberty it cannot be obtained by fallacy. It can only be obtained the only way it has been in the past: the reciprocal insurance against all parasitism by the promise of violence to suppress it. This is the operational definition of liberty, just as liberty: the constraint of state actors to the morality of interpersonal conduct, is the descriptive definition of liberty, just as freedom from imposition is the experiential description of liberty.
All ‘optimistic consequences’ argued in Rothbardian libertinism are false. That is because the optimistic consequences increase the expense of suppression of parasitism with ongoing diligence, that never ends. There is no end to policing against parasitism. There is only the necessity of non-interference in the common law, which offers the most rapid means of suppression of parasitism: making new inventions of parasitism illegal with the first suit adjudicated.
**Liberty: Every man a warrior. Every man a craftsman. Every man a merchant. Every man an investor. Every man a sheriff. Every man a Judge. Every man a Legislator. This is the only known means of constructing liberty.**
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
—“The entire basis of Anarcho-capitalism is that reputation networks will convey information “—
[T]hat fallacy is a hack of pathological altruism. It is neither logically no empirically true. The reason being that production and consumption decrease rapidly due to the increased transaction costs with the necessity of reputation (knowledge) in a market that exists precisely because of anonymity (complexity and ignorance). And empirically we cannot find evidence to the contrary. So as long as you cannot run out of customers to cheat, it is cheaper and more rewarding to cheat customers than engage in production. (rothbardian ghetto ethics again).
The state need not regulate the market, however, to create competitive economic velocity the law must prohibit ‘cheating’. Or better stated, the legal prohibition on parasitism that violates the incentive to cooperate (thereby increasing transaction costs and decreasing economic velocity), expressed as a requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality of the same criteria, must expand with inventions of means of parasitism. The sequence of parasitism from the most direct and to the most indirect is: murder, violence, theft, fraud, extortion, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, conquest, genocide. As the division of knowledge and labor and the complexity of production increases, anonymity increases, and new opportunities for parasitism are invented, requiring the common law to respond with new prohibitions on parasitism. Well functioning markets with adequate suppression of parasitism increase trust. Poorly functioning markets function poorly because of inadequate suppression of parasitism.
If we say that we desire freedom from a parasitic government (liberty) how can we logically claim not to desire freedom from parasitic individuals (morality)? The only logical answer, if one claims both liberty, and opportunity for parasitism, is that one seeks to cheat both the commons and cheat others. As such one is simply a parasite identical to those of that populate the state and justify their parasitism with claims of the common good.
Rothbardianism is, like neo-conservatism, and socialism, a hack of our western gullibility due to pathological altruism. It’s one of the great deceits. Not as great as Socialism and particularly (pseudo)scientific socialism, and not as great in success as neo-conservatism, but certainly as well articulated as the former. IF we desire existential liberty it cannot be obtained by fallacy. It can only be obtained the only way it has been in the past: the reciprocal insurance against all parasitism by the promise of violence to suppress it. This is the operational definition of liberty, just as liberty: the constraint of state actors to the morality of interpersonal conduct, is the descriptive definition of liberty, just as freedom from imposition is the experiential description of liberty.
All ‘optimistic consequences’ argued in Rothbardian libertinism are false. That is because the optimistic consequences increase the expense of suppression of parasitism with ongoing diligence, that never ends. There is no end to policing against parasitism. There is only the necessity of non-interference in the common law, which offers the most rapid means of suppression of parasitism: making new inventions of parasitism illegal with the first suit adjudicated.
**Liberty: Every man a warrior. Every man a craftsman. Every man a merchant. Every man an investor. Every man a sheriff. Every man a Judge. Every man a Legislator. This is the only known means of constructing liberty.**
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
[M]en require an incentive to care about women and society. If women fail to provide men with that incentive under relative liberty, men will cease suppressing their desires for the benefit of women and society. If women fail to provide men with that incentive under relative illiberty, then they will force women into submissive roles.
These are empirical statements and constant throughout history. There is no free lunch for women. There is no feminist utopia. The compromise between the genders that is the family is the result of the evolutionary game theory: it is the best option available for both genders, even if it is not the best for either gender.
So, a few of us may ‘cheat’ the compromise and get away with it. But if enough of us cheat the compromise it will break. If it breaks we end up with either men enforcing it, or conquest by those that do. Civilization may be constructed almost entirely by men, but the INCENTIVE to produce civilization is provided by women. That is because for the alpha males, who are the world’s greatest super-predator’s. War, Raiding, Fighting, Pillaging, Stealing and Raping are preferable and enjoyable activities.
[M]en require an incentive to care about women and society. If women fail to provide men with that incentive under relative liberty, men will cease suppressing their desires for the benefit of women and society. If women fail to provide men with that incentive under relative illiberty, then they will force women into submissive roles.
These are empirical statements and constant throughout history. There is no free lunch for women. There is no feminist utopia. The compromise between the genders that is the family is the result of the evolutionary game theory: it is the best option available for both genders, even if it is not the best for either gender.
So, a few of us may ‘cheat’ the compromise and get away with it. But if enough of us cheat the compromise it will break. If it breaks we end up with either men enforcing it, or conquest by those that do. Civilization may be constructed almost entirely by men, but the INCENTIVE to produce civilization is provided by women. That is because for the alpha males, who are the world’s greatest super-predator’s. War, Raiding, Fighting, Pillaging, Stealing and Raping are preferable and enjoyable activities.
[D]amn. Great article. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/why-college-kids-are-avoiding-the-study-of-literature/
Other points I thought of while reading it:
(a) another (failed) twentieth century attempt at ‘scientizing’ an art to increase the status of it’s professors. There are indeed basic rules to the craft of writing. But that in the end result, fiction is a parable: it gives us experiences of hypotheses at a discount and in compressed time. As such we can carry rich and complex parables, sometimes amounting to the entire mental framework of the author in his time, with us, as if we are Methuselah, having lived a thousand lives.
(b) I have been concerned about the use of literature as a vehicle for empathic suggestion and therefore as a means of deceit as it has been by the postmoderns – but now that I know it is possible to objectively test the moral content of actions, I know it is just as possible to teach people to morally judge literature, just as they rationally judge arguments, or scientifically judge the possibility of physical phenomenon. We merely would need teach objective morality, and the construction of moral political, social , moral, and commercial contract. Since this is the only form of accounting we can sense, perceive and measure without instruments, moral science should be the easiest science to teach. Leaving authors of literature as unconstrained with moral challenges for characters as science fiction authors are unchallenged with challenges of physics for their readers.
(c) science describes the universe. history describes man. fiction produces theory about what might be, how we might act, and in doing so is the most abstract, but most richly loaded method of teaching how one might live one’s life (and how one might not want to.)
(d) I can’t afford to read literature any longer, even if I love it as a kid. Too informationally sparse, and too time consuming. And I have too much experience in the world. And unless it’s mystery almost all of it is predictable. I am also too cognizant of the agendas of authors (Dickens),and too intolerant of their (shallow) attempts at manipulation, as well as that of liberation theology (Steinbeck), or even more subtle cultural competition (Dr.Seuss). While I can appreciate the artistry of Joyce’ Ulysses, I quickly lose patience with his and Pynchon’s works. Only Shakespeare seems to warrant the investment.
(e) So yes, I find cliff or spark notes, or even amazon reviews, useful in selecting those rare investments I choose to make. And I can see the value of teens and adults merely referring to them, and wikipedia entries. Why? Because scanning multitudinous sources for similar information in brief form provides less opportunity for deception by framing, overloading and suggestion. Which is why I find the whole idea of the near infinite discount on information access that comes with the information era more important than the literary era.
All communication is dependent upon technology. Novels provided entertainment and experiential enlightenment and most importantly, insight into the minds of characters. And novels were profitable vehicles. Movies do this poorly, but they show us rich information about the world and even now, about imagination of the world. And they were profitable vehicles.. But summary articles often do the same. And we can cover so much more thought in articles than we can in books. We can learn more, choose our own paths like a game, and compare dozens hundreds if not thousands of opinions and perspectives. However, one cannot make money at these things.
That is what I find most interesting about the information era. Incentives to produce truth rather than deception. And the use of comparison rather than argument to circumvent deception.
Conversely, authors no longer have much ability to influence the reader except with insight and fact. And it is this I think that creates opportunity for ours and future generations. We can perhaps all of us master the small number of basic principles of the physical and social realms, independent of the error, bias, wishful thinking, loading, framing, overloading and deceit that has plagued past generations.
But what will happen then is the loss of the influence of the narrator. And the relegation of such narrators to vaudeville. And that I think, is the real objection of the narrative (middle) intellectual class, compared to the factual (upper) intellectual class. Isn’t that something to ponder!?
(As such ( Troy Camplin ) I have lost my concern over the use of literature. All theories can be tested. All moral theories can be tested. The problem was creating the means by which moral theory and argument could be tested. And that was not so hard really in retrospect. )
[D]amn. Great article. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/why-college-kids-are-avoiding-the-study-of-literature/
Other points I thought of while reading it:
(a) another (failed) twentieth century attempt at ‘scientizing’ an art to increase the status of it’s professors. There are indeed basic rules to the craft of writing. But that in the end result, fiction is a parable: it gives us experiences of hypotheses at a discount and in compressed time. As such we can carry rich and complex parables, sometimes amounting to the entire mental framework of the author in his time, with us, as if we are Methuselah, having lived a thousand lives.
(b) I have been concerned about the use of literature as a vehicle for empathic suggestion and therefore as a means of deceit as it has been by the postmoderns – but now that I know it is possible to objectively test the moral content of actions, I know it is just as possible to teach people to morally judge literature, just as they rationally judge arguments, or scientifically judge the possibility of physical phenomenon. We merely would need teach objective morality, and the construction of moral political, social , moral, and commercial contract. Since this is the only form of accounting we can sense, perceive and measure without instruments, moral science should be the easiest science to teach. Leaving authors of literature as unconstrained with moral challenges for characters as science fiction authors are unchallenged with challenges of physics for their readers.
(c) science describes the universe. history describes man. fiction produces theory about what might be, how we might act, and in doing so is the most abstract, but most richly loaded method of teaching how one might live one’s life (and how one might not want to.)
(d) I can’t afford to read literature any longer, even if I love it as a kid. Too informationally sparse, and too time consuming. And I have too much experience in the world. And unless it’s mystery almost all of it is predictable. I am also too cognizant of the agendas of authors (Dickens),and too intolerant of their (shallow) attempts at manipulation, as well as that of liberation theology (Steinbeck), or even more subtle cultural competition (Dr.Seuss). While I can appreciate the artistry of Joyce’ Ulysses, I quickly lose patience with his and Pynchon’s works. Only Shakespeare seems to warrant the investment.
(e) So yes, I find cliff or spark notes, or even amazon reviews, useful in selecting those rare investments I choose to make. And I can see the value of teens and adults merely referring to them, and wikipedia entries. Why? Because scanning multitudinous sources for similar information in brief form provides less opportunity for deception by framing, overloading and suggestion. Which is why I find the whole idea of the near infinite discount on information access that comes with the information era more important than the literary era.
All communication is dependent upon technology. Novels provided entertainment and experiential enlightenment and most importantly, insight into the minds of characters. And novels were profitable vehicles. Movies do this poorly, but they show us rich information about the world and even now, about imagination of the world. And they were profitable vehicles.. But summary articles often do the same. And we can cover so much more thought in articles than we can in books. We can learn more, choose our own paths like a game, and compare dozens hundreds if not thousands of opinions and perspectives. However, one cannot make money at these things.
That is what I find most interesting about the information era. Incentives to produce truth rather than deception. And the use of comparison rather than argument to circumvent deception.
Conversely, authors no longer have much ability to influence the reader except with insight and fact. And it is this I think that creates opportunity for ours and future generations. We can perhaps all of us master the small number of basic principles of the physical and social realms, independent of the error, bias, wishful thinking, loading, framing, overloading and deceit that has plagued past generations.
But what will happen then is the loss of the influence of the narrator. And the relegation of such narrators to vaudeville. And that I think, is the real objection of the narrative (middle) intellectual class, compared to the factual (upper) intellectual class. Isn’t that something to ponder!?
(As such ( Troy Camplin ) I have lost my concern over the use of literature. All theories can be tested. All moral theories can be tested. The problem was creating the means by which moral theory and argument could be tested. And that was not so hard really in retrospect. )
(a) people act as racial blocks to obtain power over other people – this is in their interests. (b) minorities largely are irrelevant as long as they cannot obtain political power – ie: democracy – and live within their ‘quarters’ (neighborhoods); (c) the origin of friction is not race it is the value of in-group vs out-group status signals and differences in cultural rules that suppress different degrees of parasitism: normative incommensurability; (d) where the problem of conflict is not culture it is desirability for reproduction and therefore status signals in group vs out group; (e) where the problem is not desirability it is impulsivity, and the consequences of impulsivity (spontaneous, loud, rude, crude, violent), which hinders cooperation between less impulsive and more impulsive groups.
It’s irrational to seek to overcome these frictions. In otherwords, it is not rational to expect people to behave otherwise to competitiors in those cases where they are in fact competitors not cooperators.
Genetic culling (genetic pacification, eugenic reproduction) matters. That is bcause conflict is largely a problem OF CLASS and CULTURE not of race. The problem is the distribution of numbers between the classes between the races. if you see upper and middle class people of various colors in the same room they are still more positive and trusting to in-group members, but they cause fewer political problems with outgroup members.
All groups reject out-group competitors. Whether within race or without. Upper class whites (me) don’t like to spend too much time with lower class whites. They like it even less with lower classes of other groups over whom they have no signaling value to exchange to moderate conflicts.s
I am keenly aware when traveling, or doing business, or participating in intellectual forums, when I am the white minority, and how people treat me, just as anyone else is. In Hartford (which is a black city) I felt it. For many years I worked in predominantly jewish companies and felt it. In academia I feel an outlier. In business I feel an outlier. We all feel kin selection unless we are privileged by circumstance, and in peer classes.
Hence the only way to avoid racism is to homogenize the classes and cultures such that racial signals are neither valuable nor detrimental.
We can tolerate racial mixture (it merely affects reproductive desirability). We can tolerate some class mixture within the same group. But mixing race, culture and class differences is more cross group competition for individuals in each group to rationally choose egalitarianism.
As an intellectual I prefer to judge people only on intellectual and moral merits. As member of my family and tribe I place greater value on the perpetuation, improvement and expansion of of mine than that of others. As a business man, I prefer to see everyone as equal in potential to generate wealth. As a politician I am keenly aware that internal conflict and competition are constraints upon in-group status signals (harmony), economic prosperity, the construction of commons, and the competitive success of the group is predicated on the least diverse, most
If groups are not willing to practice culling (genetic pacification, eugenic reproduction) then they are merely lying when they say they want equality – what they want is to win, and to weaken their competitors through appeal via suggestion to pathological altruism.
So from this perspective, racists are not the problem. The failure of groups to genetically pacify their underclasses is the challenge to overcome.
Anyway, that is where I end up today.
I have seen the change in american in my lifetime, and it is tragic. I am sitting here in Estonia and I see the damage done by the Russians and that the Russians constitute the lower (trailer park) classes. I can see in Sweden, Denmark, England and Norway that they have no intellectual recollection of their history of genetic pacification and therefore do not appreciate the suicide mission they are engaging in. The Chinese are perfectly aware of it. The were just less successful than the west because of their large numbers. THe hindus use class. The Brazillians have been most successful in the opposite: elimination of racism, interbreeding. And that has resulted in recreating the caste and poverty of india.
There are only three choices: hindu castes bcause of genetic diversity, aristocratic equality through genetic pacification, or asian tyranny to force homogeniety of behavior.
As usual, I would say that complaints about out-groups are admissions of in-group failure to resist competition from the range of strategies of others.
Curt
Frank CastleIn an effort to make things safe and fair we perpetuate/exacerbate weakness and flaws. Thereby creating a system in which we need more government intervention to maintain safety and fairness. All the while creating more problems increasing the need for more and more government. We truly need a new system.
Are there only 3 choices?
Eli HarmanOne reason the lower classes are racist is that they are in direct competition for resources they don’t create: jobs, handouts, etc… the middle and upper classes don’t have to argue about who gets how much pie. They can make pie.
Lou Kiss. Correct me if I’m wrong. One cannot change one’s race, but one can change one’s class for better or worse. What it takes is examination of conscience and revision of behaviour. Hence, we all have the potential to rise up to moral aristocracy but the individual must do it for himself.
(a) people act as racial blocks to obtain power over other people – this is in their interests. (b) minorities largely are irrelevant as long as they cannot obtain political power – ie: democracy – and live within their ‘quarters’ (neighborhoods); (c) the origin of friction is not race it is the value of in-group vs out-group status signals and differences in cultural rules that suppress different degrees of parasitism: normative incommensurability; (d) where the problem of conflict is not culture it is desirability for reproduction and therefore status signals in group vs out group; (e) where the problem is not desirability it is impulsivity, and the consequences of impulsivity (spontaneous, loud, rude, crude, violent), which hinders cooperation between less impulsive and more impulsive groups.
It’s irrational to seek to overcome these frictions. In otherwords, it is not rational to expect people to behave otherwise to competitiors in those cases where they are in fact competitors not cooperators.
Genetic culling (genetic pacification, eugenic reproduction) matters. That is bcause conflict is largely a problem OF CLASS and CULTURE not of race. The problem is the distribution of numbers between the classes between the races. if you see upper and middle class people of various colors in the same room they are still more positive and trusting to in-group members, but they cause fewer political problems with outgroup members.
All groups reject out-group competitors. Whether within race or without. Upper class whites (me) don’t like to spend too much time with lower class whites. They like it even less with lower classes of other groups over whom they have no signaling value to exchange to moderate conflicts.s
I am keenly aware when traveling, or doing business, or participating in intellectual forums, when I am the white minority, and how people treat me, just as anyone else is. In Hartford (which is a black city) I felt it. For many years I worked in predominantly jewish companies and felt it. In academia I feel an outlier. In business I feel an outlier. We all feel kin selection unless we are privileged by circumstance, and in peer classes.
Hence the only way to avoid racism is to homogenize the classes and cultures such that racial signals are neither valuable nor detrimental.
We can tolerate racial mixture (it merely affects reproductive desirability). We can tolerate some class mixture within the same group. But mixing race, culture and class differences is more cross group competition for individuals in each group to rationally choose egalitarianism.
As an intellectual I prefer to judge people only on intellectual and moral merits. As member of my family and tribe I place greater value on the perpetuation, improvement and expansion of of mine than that of others. As a business man, I prefer to see everyone as equal in potential to generate wealth. As a politician I am keenly aware that internal conflict and competition are constraints upon in-group status signals (harmony), economic prosperity, the construction of commons, and the competitive success of the group is predicated on the least diverse, most
If groups are not willing to practice culling (genetic pacification, eugenic reproduction) then they are merely lying when they say they want equality – what they want is to win, and to weaken their competitors through appeal via suggestion to pathological altruism.
So from this perspective, racists are not the problem. The failure of groups to genetically pacify their underclasses is the challenge to overcome.
Anyway, that is where I end up today.
I have seen the change in american in my lifetime, and it is tragic. I am sitting here in Estonia and I see the damage done by the Russians and that the Russians constitute the lower (trailer park) classes. I can see in Sweden, Denmark, England and Norway that they have no intellectual recollection of their history of genetic pacification and therefore do not appreciate the suicide mission they are engaging in. The Chinese are perfectly aware of it. The were just less successful than the west because of their large numbers. THe hindus use class. The Brazillians have been most successful in the opposite: elimination of racism, interbreeding. And that has resulted in recreating the caste and poverty of india.
There are only three choices: hindu castes bcause of genetic diversity, aristocratic equality through genetic pacification, or asian tyranny to force homogeniety of behavior.
As usual, I would say that complaints about out-groups are admissions of in-group failure to resist competition from the range of strategies of others.
Curt
Frank CastleIn an effort to make things safe and fair we perpetuate/exacerbate weakness and flaws. Thereby creating a system in which we need more government intervention to maintain safety and fairness. All the while creating more problems increasing the need for more and more government. We truly need a new system.
Are there only 3 choices?
Eli HarmanOne reason the lower classes are racist is that they are in direct competition for resources they don’t create: jobs, handouts, etc… the middle and upper classes don’t have to argue about who gets how much pie. They can make pie.
Lou Kiss. Correct me if I’m wrong. One cannot change one’s race, but one can change one’s class for better or worse. What it takes is examination of conscience and revision of behaviour. Hence, we all have the potential to rise up to moral aristocracy but the individual must do it for himself.
[Y]es, I’ve been doing a bit of research and it’s starting to come together.
Whig history bites again. Falsification wins again.
The problem a polity faces is culling defects consistently and selecting for the amplification of existing traits, not the accumulation of beneficial mutations.
In retrospect it is really obvious.
We have passed peak human.