Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • SALON: A LESSON IN NATURAL LAW As one of the principle philosophers of what libe

    http://www.salon.com/2016/05/23/donald_trump_is_going_to_win_this_is_why_hillary_clinton_cant_defeat_what_trump_represents/FOR SALON: A LESSON IN NATURAL LAW

    As one of the principle philosophers of what liberals refer to as “reactionary fascism”….

    … I’d like to add that the problem with both neo-liberalism and movement-conservatism has been the assumption that the other side would eventually ‘catch on’ rather than pursue their own interests.

    Liberal(socialist) strategy reflects the female reproductive strategy to increase the viability of her offspring regardless of its merit to the tribe, and to increase numbers in an attempt to prevent alphas from controlling the direction of evolution.

    The conservative(aristocratic) strategy reflects the male reproductive strategy to increase the viability of the tribe in competition with other tribes, regardless of the interests of the uncompetitive individuals within it.

    What happened instead, was that once the difference between male and female reproductive strategy was no longer constrained to the family, and that policy was no longer developed to advance the family, was that females first, and as a consequence, more recently males, have each pursued their individual reproductive interests in politics and law, instead of compromising them within the family, and voting in the interests of the family.

    Ergo, just as socialism(non-merit) advances the interests of females and underclasses, aristocracy(merit) – what you call fascism – advances the interests of the male.

    The institutional solution to this problem of conflict are either (a) restoration of the family as the central purpose of policy – rather than the individual, or (b) the separation of houses in to gender, class and race, so that all must agree to any policy in order for it to ascend into legislative law.

    The west advanced faster than ‘the rest’ in large part because of successfully instituted eugenic reproduction over a period of many hundreds of years.

    1) Late marriage ensuring women were experienced at working and running households.

    2) Prohibition on cousin marriage out to as many as 12 generations – ensuring limited genetic damage from inbreeding that is so influential in much of the world.

    3) Extension of property rights to women ensuring that cousin marriage could not be used to hold territory in a clan.

    4) The use of Bipartite Manorialism to restrict access to farmland to married couples of demonstrated character sufficient to make use of it.

    5) Heavy taxation that limited the reproduction of the lower classes.

    6) Hanging 1/2 to 1% of the population every single year.

    7) The cumulative effect being the upward redistribution of reproduction to the genetic middle class.

    Liberalism(female reproductive strategy) inverts this aristocracy/fascism(male reproductive strategy), redistributing reproduction downward to the lower classes.

    WHY DOES THIS DIFFERENCE EXIST?

    Man has developed two strategies for organizing(governing) societies, with each necessary for the demographics each governs.

    1) The Persian/Iranian/Jewish/Egyptian (Managers)

    In the fertile crescent the climate allows the survival of many offspring and the use of flood plains can make use of genetically lower class labor and slaves.

    In the Persian/Jewish/Egyptian model, an elite uses verbal mysticism to dominate and ‘farm’ the lower classes, using large slave armies.

    2) The Chinese / Russian (conquerors)

    The Conquering Peoples. The Chinese rapidly advanced beyond flood plains out of defense against raiding neighbors and then converted to authoritarian conquerors. But out of genetic and cultural diversity, had to maintain authoritarian order.

    The Russians -steppe raiders- learned their governance from the conquering Mongols, and so started as conquerors, and because of genetic and cultural diversity had to maintain authoritarian order – bypassing both the flood pain, and the

    3) The Hellenic/Roman/Germanic (enfranchisors)

    The forest-and-rivers of the european plain allow for if not require, individual family farms, and the survival of harsh winters limits the ability of the genetically lower classes from survival.

    In the Hellenic/Roman/Germanic model, an elite uses rule of law among many peers to suppress the reproduction and burden of the lower classes, using militia and voluntarily organized warriors.

    4) The Hindu/South American Model (Failed Managers)

    In this model the aristocracy is so overwhelmed by the numbers of the underclasses that it cannot create Pareto-distribution of property, and without the control of the flood plains, the only method of insuring the survivability of the populace is through castes, and constraining the upper classes from down-breeding.

    We see this socialist strategy today in the Islamic forced indoctrination, in Jewish verbalism – information control by saturation of it, and in Chinese/Russian violence/censorship – information control by limiting it. All three of these methods are constructed of deceit.

    We see this aristocratic strategy today only in Germanic the west, that still seeks to parent society into a universal genetic middle class – an ‘aristocracy of everyone’ – by the suppression or at least out-casting of the underclasses.

    THE WEST MUST CHOOSE A FUTURE SUITABLE TO ITS DEMOGRAPHIC, AND A DEMOGRAPHIC SUITABLE TO ITS DESIRED FUTURE

    The Aristocratic Egalitarian System (that everyone seems to want to belong to)

    The Caste System (which is evolving in south america)

    The Authoritarian Disinformation System (Russia and china)

    The Authoritarian Mystical System (Judaism in all its many forms / Islamism)

    In the end, we must abandon the pseudosciences of the Jewish Enlightenment: Boaz, Freud, Marx, and the Frankfurt School. As well as the pseudosciences of the continentals: the postmodernists. As well as the pseudosciences of the soviets.

    Our world is as genetic as that of domesticated animals. We are unequal. And it is more important that we suppress the reproduction of the lower classes than it is that we attempt to improve the upper.

    There is precious little evidence that more than two and a half standard deviations in intelligence make much difference – instead it introduces dysfunction. Our problem is increasing the domestication and intelligence of the population by one standard deviation (15 points) and we cannot do that, nor possess prosperity, nor redistribution, nor liberty, if we reverse three thousand years of eugenic reproduction.

    This is the world as it is. Governing the people we possess. With the people we possess to govern with.

    Neoliberalism is yet another lie. A new mysticism. A secular religion. An evolution of Egyptian, Persian, Jewish, Muslim thought. Nothing more. Yet another set of appealing lies.

    And those lies are a prison for genes, and therefore for man.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-24 07:21:00 UTC

  • All human moral intuitions are reducible to prohibitions on imposition against v

    All human moral intuitions are reducible to prohibitions on imposition against various inventories (property).


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-23 15:02:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/734761432374509568

    Reply addressees: @aparanjape @pmarca

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/734611335783272449


    IN REPLY TO:

    @aparanjape

    “Google is doubling down on Artificial Intelligence as the next great phase of Computing” https://t.co/m3h0dcf7oV .. @pmarca

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/734611335783272449

  • Choices require a means of decidability. Property is the only decidable value th

    Choices require a means of decidability. Property is the only decidable value that is calculable(rational)+cooperative.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-23 15:01:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/734761129499582465

    Reply addressees: @aparanjape @pmarca

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/734611335783272449


    IN REPLY TO:

    @aparanjape

    “Google is doubling down on Artificial Intelligence as the next great phase of Computing” https://t.co/m3h0dcf7oV .. @pmarca

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/734611335783272449

  • Humans regulate eachother by the behavior we call ‘property’. AI’s that do also

    Humans regulate eachother by the behavior we call ‘property’. AI’s that do also will readily simulate human behavior.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-23 14:59:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/734760594931339264

    Reply addressees: @aparanjape @pmarca

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/734611335783272449


    IN REPLY TO:

    @aparanjape

    “Google is doubling down on Artificial Intelligence as the next great phase of Computing” https://t.co/m3h0dcf7oV .. @pmarca

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/734611335783272449

  • How Can Human Rights Be Taken Away?

    Rather foolish question.

    The question is how do we create them in the first place.

    Human rights consist in a list of things we seek to create.

    We are not all that good at creating them.

    And I think the question is still open whether we should create them, or whether people should earn them by their thoughts, words, and deeds.

    https://www.quora.com/How-can-human-rights-be-taken-away

  • Solving the problem of truthfulness (ending deceit in matters of the commons) wa

    Solving the problem of truthfulness (ending deceit in matters of the commons) was what has taken me years to solve.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-18 14:40:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/732943934054367232

    Reply addressees: @Wasian_NRx

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/732938517261758466


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/732938517261758466

  • DEBATE VS PROSECUTION: THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMMONS OF LIBERTY. (important)(I

    DEBATE VS PROSECUTION: THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMMONS OF LIBERTY.

    (important)(If you read one article on liberty today, read this one)

    The purpose of the DEBATE is to convince the audience – the audience is the judge. Ergo, debate is a political activity in which we seek to inform, persuade, and judge a question of commons.

    Individuals argue, persuade, or discuss – engage in personal exchange, even if this exchange is only knowledge.

    Prosecutors and Defendants attempt to defeat their opponents on grounds of harm – not the determination of a good – whether personal or common good.

    While exchange may require consent, and while opinion on debate in the commons may or may not, prosecution does not. In fact, the purpose of prosecution is to pursue the truth regardless of the desires of the parties prosecuted.

    The technique I have been developing is not one in which we assume (as does Hoppe) that parties have honest, ethical, moral, intentions, and that if we dislike anything whatsoever we can walk away from and let them do damage elsewhere – but that it is only after we prosecute their arguments in an attempt to see if they survive attempts at parasitism, that we can engage in exchange of ideas – and if not that we must not let them do damage elsewhere, and to demand restitution(recant) or punishment(shame) for their propositions.

    This is the difference between the ‘libertarians’ who do not pay the cost of defending the commons, and those of us who desire the commons of a condition of liberty, and as such are willing to pay the high cost of constructing and maintaining the commons of liberty.

    Now, I don’t generally engage in debate. I start from the first principle of cooperation: non-parasitism. I want to know how the other person is engaging in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, or deceit. If they are not engaging in those things then their argument survives, and we can then conduct a negotiation, discourse, conversation. I start with the assumption that all men seek to justify their parasitisms, and that liberty is constructed only when we forcibly suppress all parasitism, leaving only productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to productive(non-parasitic) externalities.

    That this metaphysical value judgement – the difference between the attempt to escape responsibility for the commons while demanding its fruits, and the necessity of taking responsibility for the commons in order to enjoy the fruits of liberty – is where ‘libertarians’ err.

    All that remains is to determine whether I am correct, and that this intuition of free riding on the commons, rather than constructing the commons, is produced by genetic consequence, normative consequence, or both.

    At present, given only personal experience (because I have not yet found any data other than the pattern of argument in history, it certainly appears to be ‘both’.)

    So while I do love, respect, and believe most ‘libertarians’ to be honest men, they are engaged in the argumentative support of a metaphysical value judgement like that of diasporic traders, migratory shepherds, and domestic slaves: free riding upon the commons while demanding liberty that can only be produced as a commons where words – like deeds, like property – are all not just respected, but vigorously DEFENDED.

    In other words, people insufficiently domesticated that while they may engage in exchange, and may engage in animal husbandry, or engaging in hunting and gathering, they still are not engaging in production, and in fact are engaged in the same parasitism against the commons that their ancestors engaged upon the land as hunter gatherers, and as pastoralists, and as slaves, as gypsies, as roving merchants, and finally as credit money financial capitalists. All of these people may engage in trade, but they maintain parasitism upon the territorial and normative, and often, genetic commons.

    Therefore,

    Every man a Craftsman,

    Every man a Warrior,

    Every man a Juror.

    Every man a Sheriff,

    Every man a Prosecutor,

    Every man a Judge.

    Every man a Sovereign.

    That is the only construction under which a condition of liberty is possible.

    There are no free rides. You cannot walk away from error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit, any more than you can walk away from corruption, fraud, theft, violence, and murder.

    Liberty is built by the actions of men who deny others **all** alternatives. Prosecution, Like Property, Like Truth, is a high tax to pay for liberty. But it is the only means by which liberty can be brought into existence: actions that cost us.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-17 03:40:00 UTC

  • Is Human Rights A Cultural Thing That Simply Does Not Apply To Cultures That Do Not Support Them? Why Or Why Not?

    HUMAN RIGHTS ARE LOGICALLY AND EMPIRICALLY NECESSARY FOR VOLUNTARY COOPERATION. YET VOLUNTARY COOPERATION IS NOT POSSIBLE IN ALL CULTURES.
    (trigger warning: uncomfortable truths)

    (a) We tend to conflate consumer capitalism and democracy but they have nothing to do with one another other than that they require extraordinary restraint in the behavior of the population. So when we say consumer capitalism we mean ‘the voluntary organization of production distribution trade and consumption’, and when we say socialism we mean ‘the involuntary organization of production distribution trade and consumption’. But we rarely say how difficult it is to produce a voluntary organization of any kind. A voluntary order requires individual property rights, money, prices, and a judicial system they can trust to adjudicate contracts in a consistent manner. Yet it is this judicial system (uncorrupted) that is so difficult for groups to evolve.

    (b) We tend to confuse human (property) rights with political rights. They have nothing to do with one another. There is absolutely no reason that an absolute monarch, denying political power to any and all, while applying universal rule of law and universal standing, under natural law (human rights), could not guaranty those rights (except for the last few which were required by the communists and are impossible).

    (c) There is no reason to expect that free speech, which includes false speech, or malicious speech, must be a human right – in fact, just the opposite: we can expect free true and truthful speech as a necessary human right, but not free speech without the constraint of truthfulness.

    (d) The question whether very primitive people can make use of human rights without significant forcible, financial, and moral coercion is still open. Certainly in countries like india (little trust), Russia (low trust), countries like china (no-trust), and most of islam (tribal antagonism), then these rights might be almost impossible to preserve while at the same time preserving order.

    (e) Human rights are a luxury good produced over generations by the incremental suppression of criminal, unethical, immoral, corrupt, religious, financial, and military behavior, using rule of law, while at the same time suppressing the reproduction of the lower classes such that nearly all remaining people in the population are of the genetic middle class (in IQ/impulsivity/aggression) through reproductive constraint.

    (f) Islam (the Cairo Declaration) cannot tolerate the western human rights for the simple reason that Islam requires conformity to both the Pillars and Sharia, and as such men must be given respect even if not earned, treated as equals even if they are not, and systemically prevented from enlightenment. This difference between western eugenic and islamic dysgenic law has produced the significant difference in the behaviors of the civilizations, as well as the median IQ, the opposite levels of literacy, the opposite distributions of impulsivity and emotional expression, and the opposite levels of achievement in all fields. Ergo. Be careful what you consider ‘good’, and a ‘right’ for it may not produce a good, and may not be so much a right, but a permanent curse.

    (g) China cannot also tolerate it (and perhaps should not) because the “Mythos” of the Chinese cannot tolerate scrutiny any more than the mythos of the Russians can tolerate scrutiny. China has a very difficult problem preserving the empire and perhaps should not try so hard, but given that she wants to reclaim her ‘status’ in the world (perhaps impossible, perhaps not), and given that the factionalization and civil wars in china have been a problem for so many centuries, and that the consequence for a power struggle would be so great for at least the Han, then it is somewhat understandable. The primary problem for the Chinese remains the inability to tolerate the truth in public discourse, in order to preserve ‘harmony’, while at the same time suppressing any desire for democracy (which has proven a unique western cultural luxury and not in fact a political good).

    My recommendation for both China and Russia has been to just outlaw democracy and communism both as children of the same evil western minds, and focus instead on the empirical improvement of people’s lives, and the empirical reduction of corruption, and to ask the population and reporters to assist in the suppression of corruption, deceit, fraud, and crime.

    But in countries where people either save face to lie (asia) or lie for tactical advantage (russia), it’s nearly impossible to fight corruption because it is the people themselves that are the problem. A government is just people.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-human-rights-a-cultural-thing-that-simply-does-not-apply-to-cultures-that-do-not-support-them-Why-or-why-not

  • Is Human Rights A Cultural Thing That Simply Does Not Apply To Cultures That Do Not Support Them? Why Or Why Not?

    HUMAN RIGHTS ARE LOGICALLY AND EMPIRICALLY NECESSARY FOR VOLUNTARY COOPERATION. YET VOLUNTARY COOPERATION IS NOT POSSIBLE IN ALL CULTURES.
    (trigger warning: uncomfortable truths)

    (a) We tend to conflate consumer capitalism and democracy but they have nothing to do with one another other than that they require extraordinary restraint in the behavior of the population. So when we say consumer capitalism we mean ‘the voluntary organization of production distribution trade and consumption’, and when we say socialism we mean ‘the involuntary organization of production distribution trade and consumption’. But we rarely say how difficult it is to produce a voluntary organization of any kind. A voluntary order requires individual property rights, money, prices, and a judicial system they can trust to adjudicate contracts in a consistent manner. Yet it is this judicial system (uncorrupted) that is so difficult for groups to evolve.

    (b) We tend to confuse human (property) rights with political rights. They have nothing to do with one another. There is absolutely no reason that an absolute monarch, denying political power to any and all, while applying universal rule of law and universal standing, under natural law (human rights), could not guaranty those rights (except for the last few which were required by the communists and are impossible).

    (c) There is no reason to expect that free speech, which includes false speech, or malicious speech, must be a human right – in fact, just the opposite: we can expect free true and truthful speech as a necessary human right, but not free speech without the constraint of truthfulness.

    (d) The question whether very primitive people can make use of human rights without significant forcible, financial, and moral coercion is still open. Certainly in countries like india (little trust), Russia (low trust), countries like china (no-trust), and most of islam (tribal antagonism), then these rights might be almost impossible to preserve while at the same time preserving order.

    (e) Human rights are a luxury good produced over generations by the incremental suppression of criminal, unethical, immoral, corrupt, religious, financial, and military behavior, using rule of law, while at the same time suppressing the reproduction of the lower classes such that nearly all remaining people in the population are of the genetic middle class (in IQ/impulsivity/aggression) through reproductive constraint.

    (f) Islam (the Cairo Declaration) cannot tolerate the western human rights for the simple reason that Islam requires conformity to both the Pillars and Sharia, and as such men must be given respect even if not earned, treated as equals even if they are not, and systemically prevented from enlightenment. This difference between western eugenic and islamic dysgenic law has produced the significant difference in the behaviors of the civilizations, as well as the median IQ, the opposite levels of literacy, the opposite distributions of impulsivity and emotional expression, and the opposite levels of achievement in all fields. Ergo. Be careful what you consider ‘good’, and a ‘right’ for it may not produce a good, and may not be so much a right, but a permanent curse.

    (g) China cannot also tolerate it (and perhaps should not) because the “Mythos” of the Chinese cannot tolerate scrutiny any more than the mythos of the Russians can tolerate scrutiny. China has a very difficult problem preserving the empire and perhaps should not try so hard, but given that she wants to reclaim her ‘status’ in the world (perhaps impossible, perhaps not), and given that the factionalization and civil wars in china have been a problem for so many centuries, and that the consequence for a power struggle would be so great for at least the Han, then it is somewhat understandable. The primary problem for the Chinese remains the inability to tolerate the truth in public discourse, in order to preserve ‘harmony’, while at the same time suppressing any desire for democracy (which has proven a unique western cultural luxury and not in fact a political good).

    My recommendation for both China and Russia has been to just outlaw democracy and communism both as children of the same evil western minds, and focus instead on the empirical improvement of people’s lives, and the empirical reduction of corruption, and to ask the population and reporters to assist in the suppression of corruption, deceit, fraud, and crime.

    But in countries where people either save face to lie (asia) or lie for tactical advantage (russia), it’s nearly impossible to fight corruption because it is the people themselves that are the problem. A government is just people.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-human-rights-a-cultural-thing-that-simply-does-not-apply-to-cultures-that-do-not-support-them-Why-or-why-not

  • AN OVERVIEW OF PROPERTARIANISM FOR SERIOUS NEWBIES

    AN OVERVIEW OF PROPERTARIANISM FOR SERIOUS NEWBIES

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2016/01/05/an-overview-of-propertarianism-for-serious-newbies/


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-12 13:09:00 UTC