(FB 1551721737 Timestamp) TERRITORIAL DIFFERENCES POST TWO
Category: Politics, Power, and Governance
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1551721737 Timestamp) TERRITORIAL DIFFERENCES POST TWO
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551721702 Timestamp) TERRITORIAL DIFFERENCES POST THREE ON POLITICAL THEORY Apr 25, 2016, 12:35 PM What are the first things one should know in political theory?
- The first question of ethics is ‘Why don’t I kill you and take your stuff?’.
The first question of politics is “Why don’t me and mine kill you and yours and take your stuff?”
The first question of group evolutionary strategy is “How can we either kill them and take their stuff, or prevent them from killing us and taking our stuff?”
- The answer to all three questions is the same: “Because **cooperating in a division of labor **is productive and can continue to produce mutual returns while conflict is costly and and results only in net consumption. Over time those who cooperate have more numbers, are healthier, have better industry, technology, and warfare than those who don’t.
- So, how do we organize group evolutionary strategy, politics, ethics, production and reproduction, so that we can out-compete, or at least say at pace with, competitors, given the people, their abilities, the territory and its resources that are at our disposal?
- Answering this question requires facing a very unpleasant fac****t, that the problem we face is** human capital **(talents) and that every person at the bottom of the curve drastically reduces the effectiveness of every person at the middle and top of the curve. In other words, it matters more that you don’t have impulsive, aggressive, idiots than it does that you have calm geniuses. So by and large nations in colder climates were more successful at killing off the undesirables through winters and starvation, than those in the warmer climates.
- So we see many different group evolutionary strategies dependent upon human capital, territory, and resources. The most obvious are
* the hierarchical and authoritarian irrigated flood-river valleys * the aggressive tribal steppe and desert regions * the egalitarian forest and river regions. * the equalitarian polar peoples * Each of these main groups produce different political systems in order to make use of the territory and means of production available to them. Those that do not make good use of territory and means are displaced, conquered, or exterminated by those that do. * All groups require: * A method of organizing reproduction (usually marriage) * A method of organizing production (an economy) * A method of organizing norms (usually religion/education) * A method of producing commons (government) * A method of holding territory (army) * There are two economic poles available and all make use of one part of the spectrum or another, and all economies resulting in some variant on the mixed economy: * Propertarian / Libertarian / Capitalist / High Trust / High Innovation – Why? No corruption in theory. Incentives work. But no competitive commons are produced, so it doesn’t work. * Mixed Economy of Consumer capitalism with some authoritarian commons production. Incentives work and commons possible. * Authoritarian / Totalitarian / Socialist / Low Trust / Low Innovation – Why? high corruption, no incentives, and it doesn’t work. * All governments are corrupt but if a people are successful at implementing rule of law it is possible to protect the economy using the courts from excessive interference by the government monopoly. * The method of deciding ( making excuses for ) which commons is produced rather than some other commons is a matter of local dispute. But it is actually a question of competition with other states, and it is only very wealthy states that choose luxuries rather than necessities. * That is about all there is to political theory.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551721702 Timestamp) TERRITORIAL DIFFERENCES POST THREE ON POLITICAL THEORY Apr 25, 2016, 12:35 PM What are the first things one should know in political theory?
- The first question of ethics is ‘Why don’t I kill you and take your stuff?’.
The first question of politics is “Why don’t me and mine kill you and yours and take your stuff?”
The first question of group evolutionary strategy is “How can we either kill them and take their stuff, or prevent them from killing us and taking our stuff?”
- The answer to all three questions is the same: “Because **cooperating in a division of labor **is productive and can continue to produce mutual returns while conflict is costly and and results only in net consumption. Over time those who cooperate have more numbers, are healthier, have better industry, technology, and warfare than those who don’t.
- So, how do we organize group evolutionary strategy, politics, ethics, production and reproduction, so that we can out-compete, or at least say at pace with, competitors, given the people, their abilities, the territory and its resources that are at our disposal?
- Answering this question requires facing a very unpleasant fac****t, that the problem we face is** human capital **(talents) and that every person at the bottom of the curve drastically reduces the effectiveness of every person at the middle and top of the curve. In other words, it matters more that you don’t have impulsive, aggressive, idiots than it does that you have calm geniuses. So by and large nations in colder climates were more successful at killing off the undesirables through winters and starvation, than those in the warmer climates.
- So we see many different group evolutionary strategies dependent upon human capital, territory, and resources. The most obvious are
* the hierarchical and authoritarian irrigated flood-river valleys * the aggressive tribal steppe and desert regions * the egalitarian forest and river regions. * the equalitarian polar peoples * Each of these main groups produce different political systems in order to make use of the territory and means of production available to them. Those that do not make good use of territory and means are displaced, conquered, or exterminated by those that do. * All groups require: * A method of organizing reproduction (usually marriage) * A method of organizing production (an economy) * A method of organizing norms (usually religion/education) * A method of producing commons (government) * A method of holding territory (army) * There are two economic poles available and all make use of one part of the spectrum or another, and all economies resulting in some variant on the mixed economy: * Propertarian / Libertarian / Capitalist / High Trust / High Innovation – Why? No corruption in theory. Incentives work. But no competitive commons are produced, so it doesn’t work. * Mixed Economy of Consumer capitalism with some authoritarian commons production. Incentives work and commons possible. * Authoritarian / Totalitarian / Socialist / Low Trust / Low Innovation – Why? high corruption, no incentives, and it doesn’t work. * All governments are corrupt but if a people are successful at implementing rule of law it is possible to protect the economy using the courts from excessive interference by the government monopoly. * The method of deciding ( making excuses for ) which commons is produced rather than some other commons is a matter of local dispute. But it is actually a question of competition with other states, and it is only very wealthy states that choose luxuries rather than necessities. * That is about all there is to political theory.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551717873 Timestamp) THE ONE SOURCE OF SOVEREIGNTY, LIBERTY, AND FREEDOM Sovereignty, Liberty, and Freedom are produced by one means, and one means only: the organized application of violence by a sufficient percentage of ordinary men, to prevent any and all alternative conditions. The law of sovereignty constitutes the logic by which that sovereignty, liberty, and freedom are preserved. An independent judiciary under the natural law of sovereignty preserves that one law of sovereignty until it no longer does. and at that point there is no recourse but those men who demand that sovereignty, liberty, and freedom regardless of cost.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551717873 Timestamp) THE ONE SOURCE OF SOVEREIGNTY, LIBERTY, AND FREEDOM Sovereignty, Liberty, and Freedom are produced by one means, and one means only: the organized application of violence by a sufficient percentage of ordinary men, to prevent any and all alternative conditions. The law of sovereignty constitutes the logic by which that sovereignty, liberty, and freedom are preserved. An independent judiciary under the natural law of sovereignty preserves that one law of sovereignty until it no longer does. and at that point there is no recourse but those men who demand that sovereignty, liberty, and freedom regardless of cost.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1551721894 Timestamp) If you’re a member. Vote for Prop. 😉 https://www.facebook.com/groups/198567587146349/permalink/784937938509308/
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1551809031 Timestamp) BERNSTEIN ON THE COMING CIVIL WAR
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551886968 Timestamp) by Rosenborg Predmetsky Something I’ve been considering: A forceful imposition of obscenity laws that criminalizes and censors pornography and public display of sexually arousing material, because the catastrophic psychological insecurity created in women by such media is precisely what motivates them to so profoundly resent men that they engage in their sociopathic revaluation of values that privileges the morbidly obese, the ugly, the mutilated, the masculinized, etc. Men exist not only to protect women from other men, but also from the ruthlessness of intra-sexual competition between women, and we protect women from other women, because the female underclass lashes out at males when they are made to feel worthless. Women have a need to be desired, seen and recognized, and being sexually desirable is one of their main means of doing so. On the one hand, the unnatural supra-normal stimulus generated by the ubiquity of fattening food and a sedentary lifestyle, has caused women to become monstrously ugly, and on the other hand, totally unrealistic portrayals of female beauty causes even the more attractive women to be extremely insecure. So the situation we’re in is profoundly unnatural. Women need to test men to feel safe and desired, to test their loyalty and desire. But they can never feel safe or desired in our current context, and their reaction to this despair is the kind of despairing rage that is the rough equivalent of a mass incel shooting among men. I think even 2nd wave feminists are actually on to something when they argue that women shouldn’t have to shave their bodies or face. Some women will complain that men are stifling their sexual expression. And they are right. But men need to learn to say “no” to women. Cultivating a healthy limiting impulse would lead to much happier men and women alike. Patriarchy, properly understood and implemented, is a necessary precondition for a healthy society because female sexuality is always already as aggressive and dominating as men, just in different ways.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551829765 Timestamp) —“I want leftists deplatformed from west culture and inventions.”—