Disorder is merely an opportunity to obtain a discount on the high cost of constructing an alternative order. Great strategists accumulate resources with which to create and exploit opportunities. Fools rush headlong into battles.
Category: Politics, Power, and Governance
-
The Virtue of Disorder
Disorder is merely an opportunity to obtain a discount on the high cost of constructing an alternative order. Great strategists accumulate resources with which to create and exploit opportunities. Fools rush headlong into battles.
-
The Non-obvious Benefits Of Market Government
(important topic) William Butchman just indirectly reminded me that when I say ‘market government’ is the most likely candidate for creating a beneficial form of ‘post majoritarian rule’ while retaining the benefit of creating non-monopolistic commons:a) that groups are not prevented from creating what we call anarchic (private contractual) commons, simply by setting conditions of use for the semi-private property. In other words, the Hoppeian contractual model of commons still exists. b) however, by creating a market for the EXCHANGE of commons, we can conduct trades between classes for the construction of commons, thereby obtaining through the exchange of commons what we cannot obtain through either the market, or by the private production of commons. c) the importance of this insight is that we are all compelled to think of what commons we can offer to others just as we are compelled to think of what private goods and services we can offer to others. The most common exchange will be behavior and norms for material goods, services, access and various forms of insurance. d) and that we can create competing commons (monorail vs trains) where before – only monopoly existed. If you can create a commons by wholly private construction, public non-prohibition of private construction, public competition with other common projects, or shared consent via exchange, or shared consent by mutual interest, then you are able to construct commons in every possible means rather than by the one means of majority rule – and that the most effective method of constructing commons is to trade with other classes what you have to supply: labor and good normative public behavior, for knowledge, organization, and wealth. While at the same time, no one can create parasitic commons because no such contract can survive the test of natural law that all contracts must survive. Furthermore, without monopoly production of commons there is no reason for politicals to pass legislation or regulation, only facilitate the market for the production of commons – which is in all our interests, and requires very little that we ask of man’s character to work other than by natural incentives. Again, a legal system that takes its decidability from the natural law and evolves by empirical experimentation via the common law, with universal standing and universal applicability, combined with a market for reproduction (family), a market for production of goods and services (the economy), and a market for the production of commons (government in the loosest sense), is the most empirical and truthful non-parasitic order that we can construct. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
The Non-obvious Benefits Of Market Government
(important topic) William Butchman just indirectly reminded me that when I say ‘market government’ is the most likely candidate for creating a beneficial form of ‘post majoritarian rule’ while retaining the benefit of creating non-monopolistic commons:a) that groups are not prevented from creating what we call anarchic (private contractual) commons, simply by setting conditions of use for the semi-private property. In other words, the Hoppeian contractual model of commons still exists. b) however, by creating a market for the EXCHANGE of commons, we can conduct trades between classes for the construction of commons, thereby obtaining through the exchange of commons what we cannot obtain through either the market, or by the private production of commons. c) the importance of this insight is that we are all compelled to think of what commons we can offer to others just as we are compelled to think of what private goods and services we can offer to others. The most common exchange will be behavior and norms for material goods, services, access and various forms of insurance. d) and that we can create competing commons (monorail vs trains) where before – only monopoly existed. If you can create a commons by wholly private construction, public non-prohibition of private construction, public competition with other common projects, or shared consent via exchange, or shared consent by mutual interest, then you are able to construct commons in every possible means rather than by the one means of majority rule – and that the most effective method of constructing commons is to trade with other classes what you have to supply: labor and good normative public behavior, for knowledge, organization, and wealth. While at the same time, no one can create parasitic commons because no such contract can survive the test of natural law that all contracts must survive. Furthermore, without monopoly production of commons there is no reason for politicals to pass legislation or regulation, only facilitate the market for the production of commons – which is in all our interests, and requires very little that we ask of man’s character to work other than by natural incentives. Again, a legal system that takes its decidability from the natural law and evolves by empirical experimentation via the common law, with universal standing and universal applicability, combined with a market for reproduction (family), a market for production of goods and services (the economy), and a market for the production of commons (government in the loosest sense), is the most empirical and truthful non-parasitic order that we can construct. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
Fascism In The Great Game Of Rock Paper Scissors
–Liberty/Market, Fascism/Mar, Law/Culture– The Communist threat was enormous.
Given the asymmetric value of oppy.costs, NOT ACTING in era of change is expensive. So taking early initiative or waiting is a question of forecast costs. And fascism was an answer to acting early. A condition of liberty is the consequence of the nearly universal suppression of parasitism. But just as soldiers compete, norms compete, and markets compete: *Rock-Paper-Scissors applies*. One cannot fight soldiers with markets:Rock-Paper-Scissors. There is no steady state in econ or out. There is no permanent condition of liberty possible any more than is a permanent condition of war. Rock paper scissors: Liberty/Market, Fascism/War, Law/Culture. Simple people use simple models. But while simple people use simple models it is up to us to explain the much more complicated world. And that most complicated world consists not of steady states,but of supply,demand,rents,and shocks. Facism is not a model, it is a tool with which we seek the optimum state of liberty, law, peace. Monopoly institutions are not a steady state but a means of paying for the suppression of local rent. Rule of law is not a steady state but a tool for the suppression of innovations in parasitism. That we have yet failed to create an institution for suppressing centralized rents is just a failure. Anarchism cannot do this, so the alternative is market production of commons. Because commons are necessary even for the production of property rights, rule of law and territory. And surprisingly, it turns out that commons free of privatization, are devastatingly competitive. -
Fascism In The Great Game Of Rock Paper Scissors
–Liberty/Market, Fascism/Mar, Law/Culture– The Communist threat was enormous.
Given the asymmetric value of oppy.costs, NOT ACTING in era of change is expensive. So taking early initiative or waiting is a question of forecast costs. And fascism was an answer to acting early. A condition of liberty is the consequence of the nearly universal suppression of parasitism. But just as soldiers compete, norms compete, and markets compete: *Rock-Paper-Scissors applies*. One cannot fight soldiers with markets:Rock-Paper-Scissors. There is no steady state in econ or out. There is no permanent condition of liberty possible any more than is a permanent condition of war. Rock paper scissors: Liberty/Market, Fascism/War, Law/Culture. Simple people use simple models. But while simple people use simple models it is up to us to explain the much more complicated world. And that most complicated world consists not of steady states,but of supply,demand,rents,and shocks. Facism is not a model, it is a tool with which we seek the optimum state of liberty, law, peace. Monopoly institutions are not a steady state but a means of paying for the suppression of local rent. Rule of law is not a steady state but a tool for the suppression of innovations in parasitism. That we have yet failed to create an institution for suppressing centralized rents is just a failure. Anarchism cannot do this, so the alternative is market production of commons. Because commons are necessary even for the production of property rights, rule of law and territory. And surprisingly, it turns out that commons free of privatization, are devastatingly competitive. -
If Any Of You Are Still Deceived, We Can Cure You.
(marxism, feminism, democratic secular humanism, mainstream democrat, republican, libertarian, anarcho capitalism, neo-reactionary) —“There is only one source of liberty: the organized application of violence to suppress parasitism by all means in every area of life.” Here we have the means (violence) to an end (liberty).How is this not edgy consequentialism again. Fucking animals can consequentialism bro. But thanks for your concern. Holy shit utilitarianism too! It’s literally a shit smorgasbord of consequentialism! Yeah I’m into deontological things like ethics and shit”— Greg Gilson (a victim of cosmopolitan deception, and current Useful Idiot) Neither you nor the author of the OP seem to grasp the difference between BELIEF and the ABSENCE of demonstrated preference, and INCENTIVES and the PRESENCE of demonstrated preference. In other words, the difference between an existentially impossible model and an existentially possible one. Nor do you realize the difference between internally consistent but informationally incomplete, and externally non-correspondent argument, with internally consistent, informationally complete, and demonstrably correspondent argument. Nor do you realize that selfish(isolationist), imitative(environmental), virtue(hero), deontological(rule), and teleological (outcome), ethics constitute a spectrum of problems from total ignorance to total knowledge – and that one only chooses a lower demand for knowledge when he lacks the information to use the ethical standard that requires greater knowledge. Unless of course, he is engaged in deception wherein the use of greater knowledge and a corresponding methodology of ethics that makes use of greater knowledge, would falsify his arguments. Nor do you seem to realize that your form argument is constructed by the same form of deceit as marxism: wishful thinking, overloading and suggestion, and appeal to cognitive bias that grants altruistic trust to appeals to your reproductive strategy. Now, while it is apparent to those of us with far greater knowledge and skill, that you are the victim of various forms of overloading and suggestion that appeals to your (lackluster) reproductive strategy and limited knowledge and ability, and therefore a “useful idiot” for advocacy on behalf of the left-marxist-center-libertine-right-neocon second great rebellion against meritocratic aristocracy and western liberty, it is not apparent to you for the same reasons you are open to such relatively easy suggestion. But once you are made aware that you’ve been duped, the fact that you can construct an argument using philosophical terms the consequence of which you demonstrably do not grasp, there is hope that you might learn, and transcend the Second Great Deceit of Pseudoscience and Pseudorationalism, and evolve beyond Useful Idiot, and learn the method of pursuing an existentially possible form of liberty. If any of you are still victims of cosmopolitan pseudo-mystical, pseudo-rational, or pseudo-scientific deception, we can cure you. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (note to readers: you might literally have to study this argument, or ask a few questions, but this is how you put an end to the Kantian fallacies that were adopted by the cosmopolitans and used to create the deep overloading fallacies in marxism, libertinism, and neo-conservativsm that made deceit by suggestion and appeal to reproductive cognitive bias possible. But remind people: if any of you are still fooled by the cosmopolitan fallacies – at any point on the ideological spectrum – there is hope: we can cure you.)
-
If Any Of You Are Still Deceived, We Can Cure You.
(marxism, feminism, democratic secular humanism, mainstream democrat, republican, libertarian, anarcho capitalism, neo-reactionary) —“There is only one source of liberty: the organized application of violence to suppress parasitism by all means in every area of life.” Here we have the means (violence) to an end (liberty).How is this not edgy consequentialism again. Fucking animals can consequentialism bro. But thanks for your concern. Holy shit utilitarianism too! It’s literally a shit smorgasbord of consequentialism! Yeah I’m into deontological things like ethics and shit”— Greg Gilson (a victim of cosmopolitan deception, and current Useful Idiot) Neither you nor the author of the OP seem to grasp the difference between BELIEF and the ABSENCE of demonstrated preference, and INCENTIVES and the PRESENCE of demonstrated preference. In other words, the difference between an existentially impossible model and an existentially possible one. Nor do you realize the difference between internally consistent but informationally incomplete, and externally non-correspondent argument, with internally consistent, informationally complete, and demonstrably correspondent argument. Nor do you realize that selfish(isolationist), imitative(environmental), virtue(hero), deontological(rule), and teleological (outcome), ethics constitute a spectrum of problems from total ignorance to total knowledge – and that one only chooses a lower demand for knowledge when he lacks the information to use the ethical standard that requires greater knowledge. Unless of course, he is engaged in deception wherein the use of greater knowledge and a corresponding methodology of ethics that makes use of greater knowledge, would falsify his arguments. Nor do you seem to realize that your form argument is constructed by the same form of deceit as marxism: wishful thinking, overloading and suggestion, and appeal to cognitive bias that grants altruistic trust to appeals to your reproductive strategy. Now, while it is apparent to those of us with far greater knowledge and skill, that you are the victim of various forms of overloading and suggestion that appeals to your (lackluster) reproductive strategy and limited knowledge and ability, and therefore a “useful idiot” for advocacy on behalf of the left-marxist-center-libertine-right-neocon second great rebellion against meritocratic aristocracy and western liberty, it is not apparent to you for the same reasons you are open to such relatively easy suggestion. But once you are made aware that you’ve been duped, the fact that you can construct an argument using philosophical terms the consequence of which you demonstrably do not grasp, there is hope that you might learn, and transcend the Second Great Deceit of Pseudoscience and Pseudorationalism, and evolve beyond Useful Idiot, and learn the method of pursuing an existentially possible form of liberty. If any of you are still victims of cosmopolitan pseudo-mystical, pseudo-rational, or pseudo-scientific deception, we can cure you. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (note to readers: you might literally have to study this argument, or ask a few questions, but this is how you put an end to the Kantian fallacies that were adopted by the cosmopolitans and used to create the deep overloading fallacies in marxism, libertinism, and neo-conservativsm that made deceit by suggestion and appeal to reproductive cognitive bias possible. But remind people: if any of you are still fooled by the cosmopolitan fallacies – at any point on the ideological spectrum – there is hope: we can cure you.)
-
Aristocracy Made Us.
The conservative organizing principle is meritocracy, and a significant percentage of mankind cannot productively compete. The primary reason being that they cannot compete productively is that they are nearly impossible to train, difficult and expensive to train, or more expensive to train than the organization of reproduction, production, and commons can tolerate. The conservative promise that everyone can rise if he so chooses, is false.
The conservative belief that everyone desires liberty is false – they desire consumption. But they lack the capacity to produce other than by physical means, and under direct instruction. The conservative belief that we all can be raised to join the aristocracy is false – we cannot be – some of us lack the character. The conservative pretense that democracy is possible outside of the natural aristocracy is predicated on these lies: that we can achieve equality through discipline. But we have achieved our relative equality in the west through eugenics: in reproduction, in production, in commons. And commonly through warfare, and consistently through hanging (culling). Conservatism is a eugenic evolutionary strategy and that because of this genetic evolutionary strategy we have culled the ranks of the bottom, and limited our numbers by doing so, thereby concentrating reproduction in our best people. We have been practicing this evolutionary strategy aggressively for 1000, cautiously for 2000, in one way or another for at least 3500 if not 4500, and possibly as long as 7000 years. When in fact, small percentages of the (genetic)upper proletariat, much of the (genetic)lower middle class, most of the (genetic)middle class, and nearly all of the (genetic)upper middle and (genetic)upper classes can do so. This is in fact what ‘class’ means in practice. That we vary by economic class a lot, vary by social class less so, and vary by genetic class very, very little, has no impact on the fact that the primary determinant of social and economic class is genetic class. It is not only the left that lies. Conservatives lie as well. And we lie to ourselves when we try to enfranchise and convert those people without our evolutionary history, and therefore similarly narrow distributions of talents and defects. We – the majority genetic middle class – used the lie of democracy to seized power from the aristocracy. And the left – majority genetic lower class – uses it to seizes power from us. Democracy is a very bad idea. It’s unnatural. It’s dysgenic. And it is incompatible with our civilization. It was just an excuse to use our numbers to defeat the aristocratic minority, rather than preserve them, while ADDING ourselves – the those who organize production – to leadership in aristocratic civiization: those who organize the ability to organize economically. Aristocracy made us. -
Aristocracy Made Us.
The conservative organizing principle is meritocracy, and a significant percentage of mankind cannot productively compete. The primary reason being that they cannot compete productively is that they are nearly impossible to train, difficult and expensive to train, or more expensive to train than the organization of reproduction, production, and commons can tolerate. The conservative promise that everyone can rise if he so chooses, is false.
The conservative belief that everyone desires liberty is false – they desire consumption. But they lack the capacity to produce other than by physical means, and under direct instruction. The conservative belief that we all can be raised to join the aristocracy is false – we cannot be – some of us lack the character. The conservative pretense that democracy is possible outside of the natural aristocracy is predicated on these lies: that we can achieve equality through discipline. But we have achieved our relative equality in the west through eugenics: in reproduction, in production, in commons. And commonly through warfare, and consistently through hanging (culling). Conservatism is a eugenic evolutionary strategy and that because of this genetic evolutionary strategy we have culled the ranks of the bottom, and limited our numbers by doing so, thereby concentrating reproduction in our best people. We have been practicing this evolutionary strategy aggressively for 1000, cautiously for 2000, in one way or another for at least 3500 if not 4500, and possibly as long as 7000 years. When in fact, small percentages of the (genetic)upper proletariat, much of the (genetic)lower middle class, most of the (genetic)middle class, and nearly all of the (genetic)upper middle and (genetic)upper classes can do so. This is in fact what ‘class’ means in practice. That we vary by economic class a lot, vary by social class less so, and vary by genetic class very, very little, has no impact on the fact that the primary determinant of social and economic class is genetic class. It is not only the left that lies. Conservatives lie as well. And we lie to ourselves when we try to enfranchise and convert those people without our evolutionary history, and therefore similarly narrow distributions of talents and defects. We – the majority genetic middle class – used the lie of democracy to seized power from the aristocracy. And the left – majority genetic lower class – uses it to seizes power from us. Democracy is a very bad idea. It’s unnatural. It’s dysgenic. And it is incompatible with our civilization. It was just an excuse to use our numbers to defeat the aristocratic minority, rather than preserve them, while ADDING ourselves – the those who organize production – to leadership in aristocratic civiization: those who organize the ability to organize economically. Aristocracy made us.