Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • Conservatism Understood

    Conservatism Understood https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/conservatism-understood-3/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 04:36:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265502066300108800

  • Conservatism Understood

    Dec 1, 2019, 10:43 AM CONSERVATISM UNDERSTOOD (worth repeating) A conservative questions the overestimation of reason, and above all questions consensus. Conservatism is familial, stoic, pragmatic, and empirical. In other words risk averse to capital. As a means of questioning, a conservative requires reciprocity (tort): american < british < anglo saxon < germanic < european < norther indo european in law. That law evolved from the oath (tell the truth, never steal, never flee, in combat). A Conservative requires empirical results – and where empirical fails, the traditional is adequate, since traditional survived empirical tests in competition in reality. A Conservative accumulates genetic, cultural, normative, institutional, physical, and territorial capital – attempting to pass on to future generations of his family, more than he himself inherited. Conservatism is a eugenic group evolutionary strategy that increases accumulated capital through intergenerational transfer, using intergeneration lending, in order to produce increasingly noble families. Ergo successful individuals in the market for craftsmanship, successful purchase of the franchise through military service, successful individuals in the market for marriage and child rearing, successful individuals in the market for industry, successful families in the market for noble (intergenerational) families. In other words, conservatism(aristocracy) is a eugenic group evolutionary strategy. And while bipartite manorialism was practiced from 700, and aggressive hanging of up to 1% of the population every year after 1000, and an attempt to escape church-state nobility, and create an entrepreneurial nobility (meritocracy), succeeded by 1600, there was a great reaction to the english revolution, and a greater reaction to the french revolution. Thus while Locke, smith, hume, adams, and jefferson promised an aristocracy available to everyone, Burke, after the french revolution, and germans after that, recognized that the peasantry was even worse at rule (see russia) than the nobility. The problem with today’s conservatism is that darwin and spencer were famous before the war, after the second world war, conservatism and eugenics were effectively banned from discourse, academy, and science. As such conservatives never (until perhaps 2000) restored empirical discourse to conservatism, because eugenics are antithetical to the experiment with democracy. This changed incrementally beginning in 76, through the 80s, and aggressively since 2000, and more aggressively since 2008. 1 – Sovereignty requires reciprocity 2 – Reciprocity requires rule of law (tort), jury(thang, senate, house of lords, supreme court), and an independent judiciary. 3 – Rule of law forces markets, since it incrementally suppresses each innovation in parasitism. 4 – Markets cause hierarchies, because they are necessary to voluntarily organize production. 5 – Markets are eugenic, because they are empirical means of testing industry and impulse. 6 – But they make possible liberty for those with property, freedom for those who labor, and subsidy for those who impose no costs on sovereignty, liberty, freedom, or property.** DOMESTICATION Man domesticated the human animal after he had learned to domesticate the non-human animal. And he did so by the same means. And the result in both domestication of the human and non human animal is the same: eugenics. CONSERVATIVES Most conservatives do not write philosophy, they run businesses, or write history, economics, science, and law. (I write because I was successful enough in multiple businesses to spend my time writing full time.) Conservatives also are actively suppressed in academy and media. This has been true since the end of the war and teh rise of the Frankfurt School, and the Postmodern school, both of which were necessary after the failure of marxist pseudoscience. (a pseudoscience marx died knowing, since he stopped writing as soon as he read the Mengerians, and kept silent only to keep the checks coming in from Engels.) AUTHORS TO READ Burke, Hayek, Burnham, Sowell, Buchanan, Murray, and maybe Nietzsche. Veblen. (The essayists are nonsense) Anyone in Hoover or Heritage institutions. READING LIST Propertarianism’s Reading List (https://propertarianinstitute.com/reading-list/). My reading list (above) contains most of the science weâ��ve been looking for, while the pseudosciences dominated the mid to late 20th century under the marxist-postmodernists. Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Conservatism Understood

    Dec 1, 2019, 10:43 AM CONSERVATISM UNDERSTOOD (worth repeating) A conservative questions the overestimation of reason, and above all questions consensus. Conservatism is familial, stoic, pragmatic, and empirical. In other words risk averse to capital. As a means of questioning, a conservative requires reciprocity (tort): american < british < anglo saxon < germanic < european < norther indo european in law. That law evolved from the oath (tell the truth, never steal, never flee, in combat). A Conservative requires empirical results – and where empirical fails, the traditional is adequate, since traditional survived empirical tests in competition in reality. A Conservative accumulates genetic, cultural, normative, institutional, physical, and territorial capital – attempting to pass on to future generations of his family, more than he himself inherited. Conservatism is a eugenic group evolutionary strategy that increases accumulated capital through intergenerational transfer, using intergeneration lending, in order to produce increasingly noble families. Ergo successful individuals in the market for craftsmanship, successful purchase of the franchise through military service, successful individuals in the market for marriage and child rearing, successful individuals in the market for industry, successful families in the market for noble (intergenerational) families. In other words, conservatism(aristocracy) is a eugenic group evolutionary strategy. And while bipartite manorialism was practiced from 700, and aggressive hanging of up to 1% of the population every year after 1000, and an attempt to escape church-state nobility, and create an entrepreneurial nobility (meritocracy), succeeded by 1600, there was a great reaction to the english revolution, and a greater reaction to the french revolution. Thus while Locke, smith, hume, adams, and jefferson promised an aristocracy available to everyone, Burke, after the french revolution, and germans after that, recognized that the peasantry was even worse at rule (see russia) than the nobility. The problem with today’s conservatism is that darwin and spencer were famous before the war, after the second world war, conservatism and eugenics were effectively banned from discourse, academy, and science. As such conservatives never (until perhaps 2000) restored empirical discourse to conservatism, because eugenics are antithetical to the experiment with democracy. This changed incrementally beginning in 76, through the 80s, and aggressively since 2000, and more aggressively since 2008. 1 – Sovereignty requires reciprocity 2 – Reciprocity requires rule of law (tort), jury(thang, senate, house of lords, supreme court), and an independent judiciary. 3 – Rule of law forces markets, since it incrementally suppresses each innovation in parasitism. 4 – Markets cause hierarchies, because they are necessary to voluntarily organize production. 5 – Markets are eugenic, because they are empirical means of testing industry and impulse. 6 – But they make possible liberty for those with property, freedom for those who labor, and subsidy for those who impose no costs on sovereignty, liberty, freedom, or property.** DOMESTICATION Man domesticated the human animal after he had learned to domesticate the non-human animal. And he did so by the same means. And the result in both domestication of the human and non human animal is the same: eugenics. CONSERVATIVES Most conservatives do not write philosophy, they run businesses, or write history, economics, science, and law. (I write because I was successful enough in multiple businesses to spend my time writing full time.) Conservatives also are actively suppressed in academy and media. This has been true since the end of the war and teh rise of the Frankfurt School, and the Postmodern school, both of which were necessary after the failure of marxist pseudoscience. (a pseudoscience marx died knowing, since he stopped writing as soon as he read the Mengerians, and kept silent only to keep the checks coming in from Engels.) AUTHORS TO READ Burke, Hayek, Burnham, Sowell, Buchanan, Murray, and maybe Nietzsche. Veblen. (The essayists are nonsense) Anyone in Hoover or Heritage institutions. READING LIST Propertarianism’s Reading List (https://propertarianinstitute.com/reading-list/). My reading list (above) contains most of the science weâ��ve been looking for, while the pseudosciences dominated the mid to late 20th century under the marxist-postmodernists. Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Anarchy Is Not Internally Consistent or Productive

    Anarchy Is Not Internally Consistent or Productive https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/anarchy-is-not-internally-consistent-or-productive/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 04:33:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265501355281715201

  • Anarchy Is Not Internally Consistent or Productive

    Dec 2, 2019, 4:34 PM (Again: Libertine, Anarchist, Libertarian Thought Fails) By: Alain Dwight (via Brandon Hayes) Rules without rulers is impossible. Asserting an active noun or verb (rule) without an actor putting it in play (rulers) is a form of deception. For a sentence to be operationally complete it has to include the actor, the incentive they follow, the change in state and a few other points (P epistemology is the first place I saw this standard detailed). Human flourishing was never created by anarchists, anarchists were always subversive as far as I know, countersignalling our ancestors that created flourishing through rule of law. Between sovereign entities, there can be no authority but reciprocity can be calculated hence rule of law measured by reciprocity is the only actual alternative to authority. Anarchism can be an appealing narrative when seeing the abuse of power but in part, it I think it appeals more ot the juvenile part of us that desires freedom than the part that desires the discipline required to create freedom. If you operationalize the narrative then Propertarianism is what you’re left with. I don’t want to rebel against power I want to have power and to have other good men have power. When good men fall into the vice of not seeking power then it calls into question how good they really are. Edit

  • Anarchy Is Not Internally Consistent or Productive

    Dec 2, 2019, 4:34 PM (Again: Libertine, Anarchist, Libertarian Thought Fails) By: Alain Dwight (via Brandon Hayes) Rules without rulers is impossible. Asserting an active noun or verb (rule) without an actor putting it in play (rulers) is a form of deception. For a sentence to be operationally complete it has to include the actor, the incentive they follow, the change in state and a few other points (P epistemology is the first place I saw this standard detailed). Human flourishing was never created by anarchists, anarchists were always subversive as far as I know, countersignalling our ancestors that created flourishing through rule of law. Between sovereign entities, there can be no authority but reciprocity can be calculated hence rule of law measured by reciprocity is the only actual alternative to authority. Anarchism can be an appealing narrative when seeing the abuse of power but in part, it I think it appeals more ot the juvenile part of us that desires freedom than the part that desires the discipline required to create freedom. If you operationalize the narrative then Propertarianism is what you’re left with. I don’t want to rebel against power I want to have power and to have other good men have power. When good men fall into the vice of not seeking power then it calls into question how good they really are. Edit

  • My Experience with The Clintons

    My Experience with The Clintons https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/my-experience-with-the-clintons/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 04:32:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265501100150489090

  • My Experience with The Clintons

    Dec 7, 2019, 9:06 AM The only reason I didn’t sue the Clinton Foundation for the $2M they stole from my company, was because Microsoft wouldn’t let me. Why? They asked us to rescue a project for the Clinton Foundation from an Indian (major) software company, and they didn’t want the bad press of being associated with a suit against the Clintons. The Clintons never intended to pay. You want to know the name of the project? Project Two Degrees. The purpose of the project? the measurement of ‘global warming” for the purpose of regulation. I lost 2M on the Clinton Foundation, then spent another quarter million financing it for the organization that started the global warming movement. So I know the data and processes, I know the incentives, I know these people, I understand how the money moves through the network, and I know the political parties involved, and who the key players are. Do you want to know how the Clinton foundation operates? They bait companies into assistance with offers to pay, then guilt them into paying the entire bill, or getting the bad press. In other words, they use the Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton technique of fundraising. They are ‘true believers’. And there is nothing more evil in this world than a true believer in anything that they can’t themselves WARRANTY.

  • My Experience with The Clintons

    Dec 7, 2019, 9:06 AM The only reason I didn’t sue the Clinton Foundation for the $2M they stole from my company, was because Microsoft wouldn’t let me. Why? They asked us to rescue a project for the Clinton Foundation from an Indian (major) software company, and they didn’t want the bad press of being associated with a suit against the Clintons. The Clintons never intended to pay. You want to know the name of the project? Project Two Degrees. The purpose of the project? the measurement of ‘global warming” for the purpose of regulation. I lost 2M on the Clinton Foundation, then spent another quarter million financing it for the organization that started the global warming movement. So I know the data and processes, I know the incentives, I know these people, I understand how the money moves through the network, and I know the political parties involved, and who the key players are. Do you want to know how the Clinton foundation operates? They bait companies into assistance with offers to pay, then guilt them into paying the entire bill, or getting the bad press. In other words, they use the Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton technique of fundraising. They are ‘true believers’. And there is nothing more evil in this world than a true believer in anything that they can’t themselves WARRANTY.

  • How Can I Contribute to The Movement (propertarianism)

    How Can I Contribute to The Movement (propertarianism) https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/how-can-i-contribute-to-the-movement-propertarianism/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 04:29:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265500425840664584