A GOOD CEO MAKES YOU FEEL SAFE TAKING RISKS
A good CEO makes you feel safe taking risks in the interests of the company, and unsafe taking risks that do not. I tell people “I will not let you fail”. If they fail, I congratulate them on what they learned. The absence of failure: efficiency, is a chimera. If you aim for efficiency you will calcify your people, and your organization and it will not respond to the market.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-26 02:23:00 UTC
ASPIES AND AMERICAN CULTURE
(riffing off the shooter)
(Aspies are usually pretty peaceful people. But while we can lack from a little to a lot of empathy, we have normal levels of desire for social integration. This is one of the reasons aspies are attracted to rothbardian libertarianism – it’s an anti-social philosophy in the sense that it consists of rules that do not require one to empathize in order to function. However, we do get the people who are extremely frustrated by constant social rejection, and who become angry and depressed because of it. As we see in the news today. Social anxiety drugs are pretty effective but it takes years to re-learn social skills. And most aspies are left to flounder on their own without help in learning those skills. Some of us are just annoyingly persistent and relentlessly pursue them. In my case, so that I could chase girls. 🙂 One of the problems the rest of the world does not see, is how the lack of family and culture in america is alienating, and more so than any other culture I have witnessed – except for niches in japan – americans are lonely people starved for attention. Which is why they idolize people who get a lot of it, even by crass means. So it’s a culture more likely to foster alienated people than cultures that both have normative rules that are highly enforced, and extended family and social networks that train people to cope. Very dysfunctional society really. )
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-25 13:31:00 UTC
Operationalism, by which I mean, strict construction from a sequence of descriptive actions, solves so many philosophical problems that are no more than artifacts of obscurant language.
Chief among them the fallacy of Natural Rights, and the fallacy of aggression.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-25 05:18:00 UTC
No limit to love for the good, no limit to wrath for the bad.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-25 05:14:00 UTC
THE FALLACY OF STARTING WITH THE ASSUMPTION YOU HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS RATHER THAN NEEDING TO CONSTRUCT THEM
If you have no property rights, but only permission from the state, to use its property in certain fashion, then the state cannot aggress against your property – nor can anyone else, except to the extent determined by the state.
To defend against this argument you must counter that natural rights exist like a soul, or are merely an allegory to contract rights, envisioned out of necessity for flourishing – or some other magical concept. Despite the fact that, contradictory to universal claims, nowhere on earth do private property rights exist. They are profoundly unnatural.
All that is necessary for cooperation is the institution of property. The scope of property is not defined by the means of transgression against property. We can only possibly hold a right that we have obtained in contract. The contract for property rights in the absence of a state can only be constructed by individuals exchanging the promise of defense in response to transgression, and the means of aggressively constructing those rights . The only means of preventing the universally extant violations of those rights obtained in such a contract, and reciprocally insured via that contract, is the organized application of violence against the state.
So it is an erroneous assumption, and a convenient one, that you start from a position of liberty, rather than start from a position of needing to construct liberty.
Intersubjectively verifiable property is a fallacy. Aggression is a fallacy. Natural rights are a fallacy. Crusoe’s Island is a fallacy. Man evolved from consanguineous bands by suppressing free riding, thereby pressing all into participation in production. Property is the natural result of suppressing free riding. At all points and at all times property is constructed by resisting free riding. Property results from the suppression of free riding. The origin of private property as we understand it occurred when Indo European cattle raiders were able to concentrate extraordinary wealth under pastoralism, by way of organized violence and they kept what they obtained in those raids. This is the origin of property: the organized application of violence against free riding.
People who are unwilling to enter the contract for organized violence in order to construct property rights both in contract and in daily practice (as a norm), are merely free riders (thieves) from those who are willing to act to construct property rights in contract and in daily practice (as a norm).
In other words, by claiming you have ‘natural rights’ you’re not only demonstrably wrong, but just trying to obtain property rights at a discount by free riding on the efforts of those who do construct property rights.
So, you’re not only wrong, but a dishonest, free riding thief, like statists you condemn are.
As far as I know this argument is bulletproof.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
Kiev Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-24 23:00:00 UTC
Social mobility, fixed forever? Gregory Clark’s The Son Also Rises is a book of scholarship, and of scholastic overreach
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-24 09:26:00 UTC
http://equitablegrowth.org/2014/05/22/honest-broker-mr-piketty-neoclassicists-suggested-interpretation-week-may-17-2014/WORTH READING
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-24 09:23:00 UTC
A JOURNAL OF ARISTOCRATIC GOVERNMENT [W]e learned art criticism in college. We learned to debate in college. Both were required in the rather socratic program they taught at the time. I improved my debate skills first in bulletin boards, then on Compuserve, then in internet forums, then websites, and Facebook. Debate is an art. I’ve always given up on these forums though. They peak. And after that, newbies are too frustrating to mature into peers, and you rapidly exhaust the abilities of the top people. Intellectual equivalent of flocks of birds. Schools of fish. Forming and reforming. But the virtues of these little microcosms is that they are both ludus and circus for training in debates with passionate and interested people of similar interests. Since anyone can enter these debates one becomes familiar not so much with the academic arguments, but with the moral, analogical, and traditional arguments of ordinary people. The “Cathedral” is so ensconced, as is the fallacy of the enlightenment (the aristocracy of everybody, the equality of everybody, and therefore the discount of the frictions of diversity ), that academic debate all but outlaws arguments constructed on refutations of the Cathedral’s fallacies. So we are at present stuck with criticizing the cathedral, largely from outside of academia. As such the only venues available are blogs, magazines, and forums. [S]o what I am proposing is to fund a conference and a journal of aristocratic egalitarian studies. I believe I can pull this off, at least for the first five years. If my business investments play out then I can fund it essentially in perpetuity (although I suspect I will not have to.) However, I would like to separate the publication into sections by form of argument. Meaning, I would prefer to include only scholarly level works, but to provide forum for moral arguments (and propertarian arguments). There is a particular wisdom to providing this contrast: it engages both the professional, public intellectual and amateur constituencies. However, I am vehemently against pseudoscience and it’s philosophical equivalent in continental rationalism. And my interest is in promoting works that provide not a justification for aristocracy, but a serious analysis of the structure of formal and informal institutions necessary within aristocratic egalitarian societies. Liberty in our lifetimes. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute The Philosophy of Aristocracy Kiev Ukraine
A JOURNAL OF ARISTOCRATIC GOVERNMENT [W]e learned art criticism in college. We learned to debate in college. Both were required in the rather socratic program they taught at the time. I improved my debate skills first in bulletin boards, then on Compuserve, then in internet forums, then websites, and Facebook. Debate is an art. I’ve always given up on these forums though. They peak. And after that, newbies are too frustrating to mature into peers, and you rapidly exhaust the abilities of the top people. Intellectual equivalent of flocks of birds. Schools of fish. Forming and reforming. But the virtues of these little microcosms is that they are both ludus and circus for training in debates with passionate and interested people of similar interests. Since anyone can enter these debates one becomes familiar not so much with the academic arguments, but with the moral, analogical, and traditional arguments of ordinary people. The “Cathedral” is so ensconced, as is the fallacy of the enlightenment (the aristocracy of everybody, the equality of everybody, and therefore the discount of the frictions of diversity ), that academic debate all but outlaws arguments constructed on refutations of the Cathedral’s fallacies. So we are at present stuck with criticizing the cathedral, largely from outside of academia. As such the only venues available are blogs, magazines, and forums. [S]o what I am proposing is to fund a conference and a journal of aristocratic egalitarian studies. I believe I can pull this off, at least for the first five years. If my business investments play out then I can fund it essentially in perpetuity (although I suspect I will not have to.) However, I would like to separate the publication into sections by form of argument. Meaning, I would prefer to include only scholarly level works, but to provide forum for moral arguments (and propertarian arguments). There is a particular wisdom to providing this contrast: it engages both the professional, public intellectual and amateur constituencies. However, I am vehemently against pseudoscience and it’s philosophical equivalent in continental rationalism. And my interest is in promoting works that provide not a justification for aristocracy, but a serious analysis of the structure of formal and informal institutions necessary within aristocratic egalitarian societies. Liberty in our lifetimes. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute The Philosophy of Aristocracy Kiev Ukraine
http://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/point-view/2014-05-22/anatomy-russian-information-warfare-crimean-operation-a-case-study
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-24 06:48:00 UTC