Simple: Mother-sister(Consumption)….Brother(Trading)….Father (Saving) –> Progressive, Libertarian, Conservative.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-20 09:42:00 UTC
Category: Politics, Power, and Governance
-
In politics you do not negotiate with the man in the mirror. But the man who mus
In politics you do not negotiate with the man in the mirror. But the man who must choose whether to fight, steal, lie, cheat, or trade with you.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-20 08:34:00 UTC
-
A NATION? NATIONALISM? VS STATISM? A State, and bureaucracy, provide fertile gro
A NATION? NATIONALISM? VS STATISM?
A State, and bureaucracy, provide fertile ground for parasitism, for the sole reason that a majority of men do not demand Rule of Law, under Natural Law, using Judge Discovered Law, and accumulating in the Common Law.
A nation is quite good at preventing alternative ‘tax farms’, brought into being by conquest using war, religion, immigration, trade. And arguably, as an extension of the tribe, the nation is best at it.
Those that could not form sedentary societies were destroyed by those that could. Since a sedentary society is productive, not parasitic.
Jews, Gypsies, underclass immigration, and we ‘migratory occidental craftsmen’, vary in value from catastrophically harmful, to a net loss, to of some limited economic value by providing expertise – we are a questionable exception, not a definite rule.
All of us live under the political orders that survive competition, not those we choose to have were that competition were absent.
Man was not in the past, nor is he today, good. He is rational. He chooses predation when it is rational, parasitism when rational, production when it is rational, and trade when it is rational. We create institutions to deny him the rational choice of predation or parasitism, and thereby force all people into either production or trade.
From that thing we call ‘rule’, by rule of law, we can possibly eliminate all discretion but judicial discretion, and judicial discretion only within the limits of that law. But in no case can we eliminate organized production of commons and survive competition.
The west advanced faster than the rest, because we created the most difficult commons for any people to produce: truth, property, jury, and natural, common, judge-discovered law.
In other words: social science. It’s our invention of social science, (law) that we applied to other fields.
And that law is insured, and enforced, by the organized application of violence by ‘the peers’ – those men who demand rule of law.
Those who cannot pay for war, cannot as a consequence, pay for staving off war by others.
Wishing for liberty does not make liberty so.
Violence alone does.
We fight for liberty under natural law, judge-discovered common law, with universal standing and rule of law (universal application), or we shall not have it.
For we will fail to rais the price of rule to some other means of decidability, organization of property.
And our only sincere permanent allies in such a long term war are our kin.
Ergo. Nationalism: kin under natural law, with a market for reproduction, a market for production and consumption, and a market for commons.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-20 08:28:00 UTC
-
DO WE CHOOSE OUR RULERS? Actually, it depends on the organization’s SIZE, and me
DO WE CHOOSE OUR RULERS?
Actually, it depends on the organization’s SIZE, and method of adaptation.
– For very large organizations, it’s that no one wills change of leader sufficiently, because of the cost of change.
– For medium organizations, people choose the leader possible for the group to preserve its power.
– For small organizations, it’s absolutely true that people choose leaders.
Choice of leadership is a game: it’s the best one we can get among those that enough people want, not the leader we want.
Leadership is necessary if for no other reason than to maintain grop solidarity while providing decidability, although consensus building is why we prefer to use them. leaders prevent defection.
I could go on about this, but leaders exist becasue we need them to. We choose the ones we CAN choose, and we change or resist change dependent upon the cost of doing so.
In markets we need only negative leaders (judges), but it is very hard to defect and survive. In the production of commons we need positive leaders (deciders), but it is very hard to defect and survive. In commercial organizations we need both judges and deciders, but we have the opportunity to defect, and we are constantly aware of the choices.
This is then, the same reason we are compensated, not for production, but for our value in the ORGANIZATION of production.
As far as I know, this well researched, well understood, and effectively a law of organization.
Economics in everything.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
(ps: any moral argument is suspect. if the argument is not reduced to costs, someone is likely trying to fool you.)
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-20 03:21:00 UTC
-
(posted as a comment about putin on the economist) You’re largely correct but th
(posted as a comment about putin on the economist)
You’re largely correct but there is a middle position that would be more correct than the one you mentioned.
Putin has done a great deal for his people, and we cannot underestimate, and we must respect and admire him for the change in their quality of life.
He had his vision of restoring 1-the scope of the Russian empire, and 2-orthodox civilization.
But he is also very afraid, not so much for himself, but for his people, and their future. They have not the economy, nor the population to return to great power status in the 21st century. While he has improved order in the country, and he as improved rule of law – enough – he still has an undiversified resource economy, a secret service that runs the drug and smuggling trade, relies upon Chechens as enforcers, and is surrounded (like a mafia godfather) by those that would replace him with glee.
Prior to his invasion of Ukraine he was possibly the most respected and influential politician in the world.
When Ukraine was successful in ousting the puppet president who denied them EU membership – contrary to everyone’s wildest imaginings – there were immediate uprisings in Moscow and St. Petersburg, and chants everywhere that Russia was next to join the western sphere.
But Putin sees American spies and manipulation everywhere, where we Americans see our politicians, state department, intelligence services, and NGO’s as a bunch of largely overpaid incompetent ‘clowns’ that couldn’t do anything right if they tried.
And he believed his puppet. The correct answer, however, was that the young militant men in the streets, having lost relatives and friends, if they found him, would certainly kill him. When the ambassadors confirmed the circumstance, Putin sent Russian special forces to fetch him, loaded the presidential jet with money, sent it to Dubai (I followed it) and he snuck off to Russia – I have no idea how, since it did not appear in an obvious way on radar tracking systems.
So for Putin, he could lose his only warm water port (Crimea) to NATO (not that I can grasp for a moment how anyone would think closing the Bosphorus to Russia would be a challenge. And worse, he’s been trying to repair and modernize the armed forces, but all the manufacturing was done in the Donbas Basin in Ukraine. So in what I see as a panic, in typical Russian fashion, he did not call up Germany, UK, and USA and say: “Folks it is a strategic problem for us face even the smallest chance of losing that port, and we propose that we acquire it from Ukraine on a 99 year irrevocable lease, after which it returns to Russian sovereignty. Because honestly, otherwise, I am derelict in my duty if I let it pass out of our strategic hands. And I am sorry but I must have tacit approval from you on this phone call, and I ask you to use moral judgment in this matter.”
Now it really doesn’t matter what anyone says really, because Putin gets on the air, tells Ukrainians that he’s terribly proud of them, but that this poses a strategic problem for Russia, so we propose 20% discount on market price of gas in exchange for a 99 year lease on Crimea and the Donbas. This will ensure that you are successful, the people in the Donbas can keep their manufacturing and mining jobs, obtain Russian pensions, and the rest of Ukraine will have an easier time financing its modernization program.”
And really, he just then sends in the soldiers HONESTLY, and it’s all done, because (a) Ukrainians see the people in the east as ‘degenerates’ that hold onto the dream of communism, (b) they just care that they can go to Crimea for holidays, (c) the price of gas is a serious burden for such a poor country.
Now part of the reason we have this problem between west and Russia is the Russian inability to admit vulnerability even in such matters.
So just as when Putin approached the USA about nato membership, and the Americans were stupid, he didn’t take his message to the American people and educate them. Just as he didn’t take the Crimean problem to other world leaders and educate them. Just as he didn’t take his message to the Ukrainian people and educate them.
I suspect it is almost incomprehensible to a Russian that Americans are actually naive utopian idealists, but they really do believe they do the right thing – despite overwhelmingly contrary evidence. But as the Israelis have demonstrated, taking your case to the American people via the press if you’re trying to exchange something and be reasonable is a guaranteed win.
So I view Putin in fairly charitable terms, as a man who saw his world fall apart, his people suffer, and himself as the hero who can restore them and their world, and possibly go down in history as an example for them.
He has one problem really: *He doesn’t sell, he only tells.*
And he has no one on his staff that ‘sells’ the Russian position.
Which is pretty damned rational really.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-19 13:30:00 UTC
-
FIGHT THIS WAR NOT THE LAST ONE I wouldn’t recommend fighting a revolution in fa
FIGHT THIS WAR NOT THE LAST ONE
I wouldn’t recommend fighting a revolution in favor of fascism, any more than I would recommend conducting a war using horse cavalry.
Every generation we get an opportunity to modernize our weapons.
Truth is enough.
Aristocratic Egalitarianism, Testimonial Truth, Propertarian Ethics. Nomocratic Rule of Law, with Natural Law, Market Government, And Treasury Credit.
Deprive the financial sector off fiat money gains. Deprive the media of copyright. Deprive everyone of unwarranted statements in the commons. Grant everyone universal standing in matters of the commons.
Lying, Statism and Corporatism will evaporate under the weight of our prosecutions.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-19 10:14:00 UTC
-
A DECLARTION AND A MICRO MANIFESTO: WHY WE FIGHT #libertarian #tlot #conservativ
A DECLARTION AND A MICRO MANIFESTO: WHY WE FIGHT #libertarian #tlot #conservative #tcot #nrx #altright (important) https://t.co/cb0IxN5dw5
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-19 08:50:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/766557835291267072
-
THE NEW RIGHT: ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM (text version) (important) (positive
THE NEW RIGHT: ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM
(text version) (important) (positive positioning)
[It’s what we do. Own it.]
Let me stay on message: As a philosopher, I manufacture intellectual weaponry in the war against lies. And I strive to speak truthfully about the causes of the decline of western civilization, and how to repair them permanently. An effort that requires I surface and expose many of the competing enlightenment fallacies, liars, ad lies, that we, from each cultural tradition, hold dear. And this falsification, I admit, I perform prosecutorially, because I believe this is a war not just for western civilization, but for the vast benefits that western civilization has delivered to mankind – often over most of mankind’s passionate objections.
But make no mistake that I remain an Aristocratic Egalitarian, a Classical Liberal, and therefore a Libertarian, an ‘Operationalist’ or ‘strict constructionist’ and a universal Nationalist. Where Aristocratic Egalitarian means the natural aristocracy struggles to prevent rule by anyone other than the natural, common, judge-discovered law. Classical Liberal Dissenter means the use of houses of government to construct a market for exchanges in pursuit of mutually beneficial competitive commons, and that we need not agree for groups to construct a commons, only fail to find lawful reason to prevent it. Libertarian means rule of law, using natural, judge-discovered, common law, and voluntary association, disassociation, voluntary cooperation, non-cooperation, via voluntary exchange. Operationalist means that all contract, regulation, legislation, and judge discovered law, must be written in strictly constructed, operational language, operationally articulated from first principles of non-imposition of costs. Universal Nationalist means that I acknowledge that the traditions, institutions, laws, norms, family structures, and policies, required by different tribal groups differ to the extent that we are all better off, happier, and in less conflict, if our governments create commons for the needs of our tribes, rather than to attempt to justify a common good that can only, in the end, seek to make everyone equally unsatisfied.
At some point in the past, scale was of such military importance, and the investment necessary to raise people out of illiteracy and poverty, that the benefits of large states were greater than the disadvantages of them. But in the current era, where men with small arms, and a small number of nuclear weapons makes conquest of neighboring states all but impossible, and the cost of corruption in large governments, and the dissatisfaction of increasingly different peoples, whose desires have been let loose by adoption of consumer capitalism, and who struggle to achieve them are constrained by large social and political orders, designed to assist in the transition to modernity, not produce local excellences for local differences.
Let a thousand nations with a thousand variations bloom. We are not equal. And our attempts to obtain equality merely convert our potential market compatibility into certain political conflict.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-19 04:55:00 UTC
-
HOW TO PROSECUTE A PROGRESSIVE (LEFTIST) In the western tradition, as a high tru
HOW TO PROSECUTE A PROGRESSIVE (LEFTIST)
In the western tradition, as a high trust people, we search for, and start from the assumption that the other party errs. These assumptions were originally necessary for military and juridical debate between peers specializing in violence, but evolved to traditional, then institutional, and now normative assumptions on how one should proceed in argument and discourse.
But what I have tried to do, is revisit that assumption, and start from the premise that the other person is trying, because of the biases of his genetics, to commit fraud. And that error is often a trivial contributor to differences in assessment and that the various forms of fraud constitute the vast majority of argument.
This is quite different from the rather tame victorian or jewish debate between peers, and the traditional western demand that the aristocracy JUDGE. As such my approach is prosecutorial rather than deliberative, since any deliberative stance in which we assume error rather than deception, merely gives the fraud permission to engage in propagandism, and prevents resolution of differences, since in discourse the liar does not admit his lies.
So why am I saying this? Because if I prosecute your statement it will be rapidly obvious to the jury, regardless of whether you consent to the outcome or not, that you’re likewise engaged in an act of fraud.
However, I’ll construct my argument briefly. First reductively, then causally.
Reductively: *Foucault is to Frankfurt as Keynes is to Marx, but it was Marx and Frankfurt that developed the technique of critique by applying Jewish hermeneutic criticism of static scripture and its dysgenic consequences instead of European scientific extension of dynamic, common, natural law and its eugenic consequences.*
Now lacking knowledge of my arguments, you assumed too much. Which is normal since it is always a question of the worth of investigating some set of ideas.
But that argument is:
1) groups make use of the argumentative technique used by their civilization, and in most if not all cases this is reducible to the argumentative structure of our ancestral laws.
2) our ancestral laws in whatever form incorporated our group evolutionary strategies.
3) we all justify our individual and group evolutionary strategies in no small part because as metaphysical assumptions we are rarely aware of them, and contrary propositions are intuitively immoral (or just wrong).
4) during the enlightenment each culture attempted to express its method of argument, and it’s group evolutionary strategy, as a universal, rather than a particular.
5) every society was wrong in that while the British scientific method was correct its aspirational view of man was false; the french method of moral literary equality was a justificationary method of preserving authority and the moral view of man was false; the german rationalism model was false but the german understanding of man was true, and its prescription (truth telling and defense of it) was true. And the Jewish pseudoscientific pseudorational pseudolegal was designed from its origins as false, polylogical, poly ethical, and parasitic. And the nature of man irrelevant if it can be exploited.
Each culture then made use of the technologies other cultures have used, and it is only since the late 1990’s with the combination of computers, cognitive science, medical imaging, and genetic research that we have started to become successful at overthrowing the last, and worst, enlightenment thinkers: the pseudoscientists and deceivers: the cosmopolitans: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, the Frankfurt School, Rand, Rothbard, Strauss, and the legion of others that have conducted a century-long campaign against common, natural, empirical, judge discovered, eugenic law.
Once we falsify the pseudoscience in each then those who arose consequentially from the original will fall as well.
Yes, Foucault(literary) like Keynes(probabilism) improved upon Frankfurt(pseudoscience, pseudorationalism), and Marx(pseudoscience, pseudoratioalism), but preserved the central theory: creating a straw man and criticizing it, rather than creating a positive argument and justifying it.
We criticize science because we do not know its first principles, we justify morality because we do. we must. or sympathetic cooperation would be impossible for us as it is between most apes.
Cheers.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-19 01:30:00 UTC
-
The problem began when india ‘came of age’ they sent the new class to french, ge
The problem began when india ‘came of age’ they sent the new class to french, german, and soviet universities for education, but lacked the Russian and Chinese military on the one end, and lacked the french and german cultural mores on the other. India is then, perhaps the country outside of south America that will suffer most severely for its association with socialism. Because between its lack of an ideological and committed military bureaucracy (Russia, china, turkey, iran, egypt, isreael), and between a still archaic culture (hindu irrational optimism and tolerance for disorder) it will be extremely problematic to ‘fix’ india without dividing it into smaller more manageable states. Or without an ideiolgical or religous group with militant intent, to eradicate corruptoin from what remains a familial if not tribal state.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-18 09:49:00 UTC