http://www.npr.org/2014/11/05/361790018/a-french-best-sellers-radical-argument-vichy-regime-wasnt-all-badNEW RIGHT IN FRANCE: DEPORT EN MASSE
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-16 15:28:00 UTC
Author: Curt Doolittle
-
My latest post: Neoreaction notices Propertarianism
My latest post:
Neoreaction notices Propertarianism
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-16 13:57:00 UTC
-
STOMPING ON MARXIST BUNNIES —“The chief benefactor of consumer capitalism has
STOMPING ON MARXIST BUNNIES
—“The chief benefactor of consumer capitalism has been… consumers, of course. (Something Marx didn’t foresee.)”— Curt
—“False on two levels. First the benefit has been to both groups, largely for the bourgeois and Marx never said there would be no benefit for workers. Please learn something about Marxist theory.”— Well meaning fool.
RESPONSE
I know quite a bit about marxist theory, I just know even more about economics.
First: Empirically measure the two statements. Demonstrate the change in the relative consumption of lower and upper classes. At present all upper class consumption is relegated entirely to signaling and retirement savings. That’s the data. Period. Otherwise consumption is nearly linear all the way down into the lowest quintile.
Ergo, the chief benefactor has been a disproportionate increase in relative consumption of workers and a decrease in relative consumption of the upper classes. The reward has been vastly disproportionally weighted to consumers, while natural aristocracy (the upper classes) have been relatively impoverished. And my statement (like most of my statements) stands. Period.
Second: To say “marx never said something” is a deceptive argumentation technique from hermeneutic scripturalism. Regardless of what one says or argues, one’s theories must correspond to demonstrated behavior in objective reality.
Third: you engage in another marxist form of deceptive argumentation by casting labor (unskilled lower classes without market utility, and therefore without utility to other human beings) and consumers as the same. So your attempted deception (spin) is just that: marxist deception.
Marxist premise is that exploitation occurs in voluntary exchange, whereas the aristocratic premises is that unskilled classes with nothing to trade are a dead weight on productive society. That there is some ‘common good’ that is an excuse for theft and predation, rather than voluntary cooperation. yet they threaten revolution (violence against life and property) if their demands are not met. Which is no different from the upper and middle classes using violence to defend their property that was obtained in voluntary exchange.
But the fact of the matter is, that cooperation is only rational in the absence of parasitism. So if you have nothing to trade, no reason to cooperate, and you seek to use parasitism by verbal justification, political deception or physical insurrection, then you are merely an enemy that must either be tolerated, ostracized, or enslaved, or exterminated if necessary.
This is the Nietzchean interpretation of morality.
(The argumentative technique I am using is quite different from that of Christian apologetics. It’s purely moral: cooperation is only rational under voluntary exchange. And so I do not truck with altruistic punishment. I revel in it Nietzschean ridicule of it.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-16 09:08:00 UTC
-
ON RUSSIA AND UKRAINE (MUST READ) George’s Observations from Meeting with their
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/viewing-russia-inside#axzz3M40hvzjmSTRATFOR ON RUSSIA AND UKRAINE (MUST READ)
George’s Observations from Meeting with their Intelligence Community:
– (a) Sanctions will not affect Russia significantly Why? See (b).
– (b) Russians have an extremely high pain tolerance – the highest on earth, and pressures that will topple western governments will not affect Russian government.
– (c) Russians cannot conceptualize american idealism. They are a brutal and pragmatic people that cannot even comprehend that we have longer term ideological interests, and they interpret everything through their practical short and medium term lens. no on in Russia has good intentions, and they can’t imagine that American’s do either. In fact, most of the world cannot imagine how ideological we are. It has taken me two years living in eastern europe just to begin to see it.
– (d) George agrees that the USA is fearful of a merger of german technology and Russian resources which would result in russian hegemony.
My ARGUMENT on (d)
I have been traditionally in favor of a unified Russo-german people and a withdrawal of american forces from eurasia to a more isolationist and northern american, or perhaps anglo-sphere alliance, with england functioning as switzerland, and america as germany. So I sit opposite of George on this position.
MY ARGUMENT on (c)
Russians’ don’t understand american ideology and I question whether George does either – He speaks in state deparatment language which reflects an implementation of the American ideology, not the source of it. Instead:
Americans have been pursuing a postwar policy of:
(i) borders are inviolable rigid corporate property rights and abridgment of them threatens both US domestic central authority, threatens the wealth of developed countries that depend on a fluid international economy, and threatens another global war which everyone seeks to avoid. The USA is a benevolently intentioned paranoid sheriff that tends to break things when he’s around – and fear of having him around is enough to keep the peace.
(ii) states, meaning governments, are accountable for human rights
(iii) People have a right to self rule, and democracy is the optimum form of rule.
BUT….
(iv) The USA will punish self rulers that perform badly regarding either i, or ii.
(v) The USA foolishly advocates democracy which is a luxury good for high trust western societies and which other societies are incapable of using. Government must reflect the trust levels of the constituencies with more authoritarian for more tribal and familial and more distributed for more outbred and commercial. The question is only whether governments violate human rights and borders, not how they accomplish doing so. Democracy is equally destructive at home as it has been in the rest of the world.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev,
#ukraine #tlot #tcot
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-16 07:58:00 UTC
-
MERE POINTS OF VIEW What is the difference between Trust, Property Rights and Li
MERE POINTS OF VIEW
What is the difference between Trust, Property Rights and Liberty?
Well, trust is the name for the experience of low risk, and low risk is the name for low transaction costs. Now, an economists whose theoretical basis evolved during the era of mass production, or the generations that followed him, would perhaps also include information and monetary and political costs, but those in my generation would also include costs of investigating the reliability of any other individual as a trading partner. But in practical terms trust-en-toto is the name we use for the warranty of property rights, rather than trust in an individual to warranty his own actions.
Property Right is the term we use to positively label our normative warranty granting one another reciprocal insurance against free riding, and for providing the institutional means of resolving insurance claims for violations of the prohibition on free riding.
Liberty is the term we use for the experience of our normative warranty granting one another reciprocal insurance against free riding by members of the government which we have chartered with the special duty of preventing free riding. Liberty is the term then for the experience of living in conditions where peers use violence to prevent the violation of property rights by the conspiratorial monopoly of the state.
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-16 04:17:00 UTC
-
END OF THE PROGRESSIVE ERA – BECAUSE OF SCIENCE AND EVIDENCE The Progressive fan
END OF THE PROGRESSIVE ERA – BECAUSE OF SCIENCE AND EVIDENCE
The Progressive fantasy was that reason and speech could overwhelm our and defeat our genes. But all they did was to give license to them – degeneracy.
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-16 02:51:00 UTC
-
TOLERANCE FOR FEMININE NEED FOR MAGIC Is the female need to believe in various k
TOLERANCE FOR FEMININE NEED FOR MAGIC
Is the female need to believe in various kinds of magic, superstition, new-age pseudoscience, and religion the men’s equivalent of need for hunting, sports and action movies? That it’s a necessary vent for the uncontrollable and irrational impulses that they cannot separate into ?
I have enough problems with the SINGULARITY of my mind – it could literally kill me if I didn’t constantly work to control it – and nearly has. We call this category of thinking a ‘horizontal’ problem. But a woman has a similar problem in that they have an equally vertical problem: a zillion ‘windows popping up’ that they simply cannot stop, and giving them an order relieves them of the work of categorizing them rationally.
I am terribly sympathetic actually. Most men have very ‘quiet’ minds compared to women. Something which many women cannot seem to imagine – how ‘quiet’ our minds are by comparison. They ask “What are you thinking?” and we respond “Nothing”, because in fact, we are thinking of nothing. We evolved to watch the horizon for prey – quietly. Patiently. That is very different from wondering about what children are doing – constantly.
So I’ve become tolerant of silly chick talk. That they cannot tell that they are aware of breathing patterns in the bus, or patterns of gestures, changes in air pressure, and that they perceive this as magic – to them it is.
We have similar mental blindness. I always am amazed how ‘dumb’ women are about politics until I remind myself that me and my fellow brothers evolved to keep other males away, to kill other males, and to take their women – and that women by contrast have a slave mind: they will acclimate to whoever is in control since their genes can continue regardless of which males are in charge.
The left suppressed Darwin more than the right. For good reason. Leftists are weaker and less attractive – less desirable. But they have numbers. Otherwise ‘desirable’ would have no meaning.
So I have become (recently) much more ‘accepting’ of silly chick talk as nothing more than the equivalent of men talking about sports or politics – it’s a vent.
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-16 02:45:00 UTC
-
I don’t do should. I do is, want, incentive, exchange and institution. Should an
I don’t do should. I do is, want, incentive, exchange and institution. Should and belief are quaint antique words left over from the mystical era, for use with the ignorant, unintelligent, and little children.
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-15 12:58:00 UTC
-
Propertarianism’s Testimonial Truth
[T]he Question:
How do we warranty that we speak the truth, given any subset of properties of reality? Testimonial truth is a promise, a warranty. But a warranty of what? All knowledge is theoretical; and all non-tautological, non-trivial premises and propositions are theoretical. Therefore how to we know our theories can be warrantied?We can warranty that our statement somewhere in this spectrum:
And we can state what criteria any proposition tested on this spectrum satisfied. And we can conversely state whether a proposition is required to satisfy each criteria.
All disciplines are subject to this list, and to testimony. All that differs is whether the properties are necessary for application of the theory to the context (scale) at hand.
Only such statements made under this warranty, are classifiable as moral: consisting of Truthful, fully informed, productive, voluntary exchange free of negative externality.
The Warranty that we give is that:
- I. A statement is stated *TRUTHFULLY*: satisfying the criteria for such a warranty to be made.
- II. A statement is *TRUE*: Assuming that we eliminated the barriers of time, space, scale, and observability, we warranty that one would come to the same conclusion if equally truthful in his actions.
We can never state whether a statement is “Absolutely True”, as in satisfying Platonic truth. And rarely can we state that we have satisfied analytic truth, and only at human scale can we testify that we have satisfied Perceivable Truth – original experience. But we can always state whether we have stated something truthfully.
The question is only *whether we truly desire to*.
Criticism of Intellectual History:
We have been obsessed with science and math rather than seeing them as simple subsets of the more complex problem. And in the west, we took truth telling for granted, when it is the first principle upon which all other western advances were made.(Next. Information Differences Necessary in Verbal Expression)
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine. -
Propertarianism’s Testimonial Truth
[T]he Question:
How do we warranty that we speak the truth, given any subset of properties of reality? Testimonial truth is a promise, a warranty. But a warranty of what? All knowledge is theoretical; and all non-tautological, non-trivial premises and propositions are theoretical. Therefore how to we know our theories can be warrantied?We can warranty that our statement somewhere in this spectrum:
And we can state what criteria any proposition tested on this spectrum satisfied. And we can conversely state whether a proposition is required to satisfy each criteria.
All disciplines are subject to this list, and to testimony. All that differs is whether the properties are necessary for application of the theory to the context (scale) at hand.
Only such statements made under this warranty, are classifiable as moral: consisting of Truthful, fully informed, productive, voluntary exchange free of negative externality.
The Warranty that we give is that:
- I. A statement is stated *TRUTHFULLY*: satisfying the criteria for such a warranty to be made.
- II. A statement is *TRUE*: Assuming that we eliminated the barriers of time, space, scale, and observability, we warranty that one would come to the same conclusion if equally truthful in his actions.
We can never state whether a statement is “Absolutely True”, as in satisfying Platonic truth. And rarely can we state that we have satisfied analytic truth, and only at human scale can we testify that we have satisfied Perceivable Truth – original experience. But we can always state whether we have stated something truthfully.
The question is only *whether we truly desire to*.
Criticism of Intellectual History:
We have been obsessed with science and math rather than seeing them as simple subsets of the more complex problem. And in the west, we took truth telling for granted, when it is the first principle upon which all other western advances were made.(Next. Information Differences Necessary in Verbal Expression)
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.