[P]rivate property is unnatural to man, even if it is necessary for mankind do produce a division of knowledge and labor. Private property was a technical innovation that allowed males to take control of reproduction that they had lost with the invention of gossip, cooperation and spears, and to do so without resorting to in-group violence, or violence against women. Private property was granted and gained in exchange for service in the creation and preservation of private property. Monogamy was a compromise. It was an unnatural compromise. Women, having obtained the vote, did not seek equal rights to property, but rents and privileges, and they are now able to use the state to extract rents from aggregate productivity regardless of gender – albeit mostly male productivity. And women are abandoning seeking rents from a single male’s productivity through marriage. It’s in women’s interest to violate private property, and regain reproductive and economic control through the state rather than through marriage or sex. Marriage doesn’t make sense for women unless they can capture an alpha, and even then its a question of benefits versus compromises. Marriage doesn’t make sense for men at all. The logical outcome for men is to free ride as much as possible, and avoid having any property at all. For those men that desire property, it cannot be obtained by majority decision. As such, it must be maintained by either exchange – buying off the rentiers – or by violence – preventing the rentiers. AND THAT IS WHAT THE DATA SAYS. Men and women are doing the logical thing. What else would we expect them to do? We may be irrational moral voters, but we are certainly rational moral consumers. The source of property is use of violence to create the institution of property against the will of the majority. Only then is property an asset worthy of seeking by the middle and lower classes who which also to be enfranchised in the prosperity that results from the formal and informal institutions of private property. (It’s thankless work, you know. …. Putting violence back into polite political discourse, one sentence at a time. 😉
Category: Politics, Power, and Governance
-
PUTTING VIOLENCE BACK INTO POLITE POLITICAL DISCOURSE (One sentence at a time.)
PUTTING VIOLENCE BACK INTO POLITE POLITICAL DISCOURSE
(One sentence at a time.)
Private property is unnatural to man, even if it is necessary for mankind do produce a division of knowledge and labor.
Private property was a technical innovation that allowed males to take control of reproduction that they had lost with the invention of gossip, cooperation and spears, and to do so without resorting to in-group violence, or violence against women.
Private property was granted and gained in exchange for service in the creation and preservation of private property.
Monogamy was a compromise. It was an unnatural compromise.
Women, having obtained the vote, did not seek equal rights to property, but rents and privileges, and they are now able to use the state to extract rents from aggregate productivity regardless of gender – albiet mostly male productivity.
And women are abandoning seeking rents from a single male’s productivity through marriage.
It’s in women’s interest to violate private property, and regain reproductive and economic control through the state rather than through marriage or sex.
Marriage doesn’t make sense for women unless they can capture an alpha, and even then its a question of benefits versus compromises.
Marriage doesn’t make sense for men at all.
The logical outcome for men is to free ride as much as possible, and avoid having any property at all.
For those men that desire property, it cannot be obtained by majority decision. As such, it must be maintained by either exchange – buying off the rentiers – or by violence – preventing the rentiers.
AND THAT IS WHAT THE DATA SAYS.
Men and women are doing the logical thing. What else would we expect them to do? We may be irrational moral voters, but we are certainly rational moral consumers.
The source of property is use of violence to create the institution of property against the will of the majority. Only then is property an asset worthy of seeking by the middle and lower classes who which also to be enfranchised in the prosperity that results from the formal and informal institutions of private property.
(It’s thankless work, you know. …. Putting violence back into polite political discourse, one sentence at a time. 😉
Curt
Source date (UTC): 2013-07-12 10:24:00 UTC
-
NO MAN IS FIT TO RULE Plato’s Republic is his attempt to creat a society capable
NO MAN IS FIT TO RULE
Plato’s Republic is his attempt to creat a society capable of manufacturing a contemporary heroic general.
But Tolkien has a different take:that none of us is fit to rule .
“My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning the abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) — or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inaminate real of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could go back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so to refer to people. […] Anyway the proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity. ”
(Thanks to Francesco Principi.)
Source date (UTC): 2013-07-11 06:07:00 UTC
-
Revisited. Different language. Same meme. Democracy is ignorance and morality. T
http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=22955#.Ud2wV36pnyY.facebookCaplan Revisited.
Different language.
Same meme.
Democracy is ignorance and morality.
Thats all it can be.
Source date (UTC): 2013-07-10 15:06:00 UTC
-
9 Points On The Libertarian Reformation
9 Points On The Libertarian Reformation: http://www.propertarianism.com/2013/07/10/notes-on-the-libertarian-reformation-revised-and-edited
Source date (UTC): 2013-07-10 09:55:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/354901633446060032
-
Notes On The Libertarian Reformation (Revised and Edited)
[D]raft of the principles of the libertarian reformation. 1) Our generation’s challenge is not socialism, it’s the state religion of anti-scientific, anti-rational Postmodernism. (The religion of progressivism.) The dogma, literature, and ideological bias of the libertarian movement is a generation behind. Emphasis on past heroes is not constructive or valuable. It is indicative of the failure to produce successful solutions to the communalist adaptation to the failure of socialism in theory and practice: Postmodernism. 2) Government per se, is not a ‘bad’. What’s ‘bad’ is the corporeal state, monopoly, bureaucracy, majority rule, and legislative law. When we fail to make this distinction we are in fact, ‘wrong’. A government that consists of a monopolistically articulated set of property rights and the terms of dispute resolution, operating under the common law, and a group of people whose purpose is to facilitate investments in the commons by voluntary contract, but who cannot make legislative law, is in fact, a government. And it is a good government. It may not be necessary government among people with homogenous preferences and beliefs. But it is somewhere between necessary and beneficial government for people with heterogeneous preferences and beliefs. It is however, not a bad government. A monopoly set of property rights is necessary for the rational resolution of disputes, with the lowest friction possible. 3) Property is unnatural to man. Tribal human settlement is matrilineal, egalitarian, malthusian and poor. Mate selection is determined by sexual favors within the group, and raiding, capturing and killing for women outside the group whenever there was a shortage of women. 4) Property rights and paternalism were an innovation made possible by the domestication of animals and the ability of males to accumulate wealth outside of the matrilineal order. Property rather than sexual favors was such an advantage that it inverted the relationship between the sexes and determined mate selection. (The feminists are correct.) 5) Property rights were created by a minority who granted equality of property rights to one another in exchange for service in warfare. The source of property rights is the organized application of violence to create those property rights. Because property rights are the desire of the minority. However, property rights created such an increase in prosperity and consumption that others sought to join the ranks of property owners. 6) The redistributive state that was voted into power by women, has reversed the innovation of private property and in concert with feminists, is eroding the nuclear family, and the male ability to collect property. The institutions of marriage, nuclear family, and private property cannot survive when a democratic majority can deprive men of private property rights, and their ability to control mating and reproduction. 7 ) Rothbardian Libertarian ethics are ‘insufficient’.The high trust society forbids involuntary transfers by externality and asymmetry of information, and enforces this demand with a requirement for warranty. The ethics of the high trust society forbid all involuntary transfers except through competition in the market. They also boycott although they do not forbid, profit without demonstrated addition of value. 8 ) Rothbardian ethics are wrong (and bad): The market incentives alone are not high enough to overcome corruption, and create the high trust society without these two additional moral prohibitions instituted both formally and as norms: norms are a commons. They are property. Conservatives are right. “Externality and Symmetry Enforced By Warranty” are ethical constraints necessary for markets to function as the only permissible involuntary transfer: by competition in the market. 9 ) Libertarians do not exist in sufficient numbers. And it is not possible to enfranchise the conservatives (classical liberals) with Rothbardian ‘ghetto’ ethics. Without conservatives, who have the broader set of moral biases, and demand for adherence to norms, the libertarian bias is morally objectionable to too large a population, and libertarians are too small in number to accumulate and hold the power necessary to determine property rights in a geography. It’s important to understand that Rothbardian ethics are ‘wrong’ because they are insufficient to achieve what they claim to.
-
The Causal Problem Of Government Is The Same Causal Problem Of Ethics: The Incorrect Assumption Of The Value Of Monopoly
[W]hy on earth, would you assume, that ethical principles must assume we agree upon ends? Seriously? Why is it that the study of ethics assumes that there are optimum ends for all? That’s, really, ABSURD on it’s face, isn’t it? I mean. That’s ridiculous. Why not that ethics agree upon means, but not ends? Is ‘group think’ or ‘group-ness’ such an instinct? I think not. I think it is fear of making the wrong decision about which group to belong to. Or simply a cover for theft… We have spent millennia now trying to apply the rules of the family and extended family and tribe to the market, and to justify takings, and thefts and redistributions so that there can be a monopoly of ethical statements. But that’s not necessary. The market doesn’t require that at all. We cooperate on means, but not ends. We don’t even largely know wo we’re cooperating with. The same is true in banking. We don’t know what use our money is put to. We cooperate with people in exchange for interest. The market, and banking, are institutions that help us cooperate on means even if not on ends. [I]f we instead of monopolies imposing homogeneity via law (commands), our institutions relied upon the voluntary exchange of property (contracts) between GROUPS with different property rights internal to the groups, but consistent across the groups, then Law and monopoly are means of one class forcing another class. Democracy is an attempt to legitimize forcing transfers between classes. But why can’t our classes conduct exchanges? There isn’t any reason.
-
Genies Can’t Be Put Back Into Bottles
[C]lassical Liberalism cannot be restored with women in the voting pool. Property rights can’t be restored with women voting. It’s not possible. Marriage cannot be restored with high participation rates of women in the work force. Birth rates can’t be restored with women in high participation in the work place. Intergenerational saving can’t be restored because of social programs and tax rates for intergenerational redistribution – boomers spent their income and their grandchildren’s. Immigration can’t be reversed so cultural identity, and civic participation can’t be recreated. Growth can’t be restored with the globalization of the work force. We have consumed much of the low hanging fruit of industrialization and work force participation. Progressives are philosophically wrong, historically and empirically wrong, and conservatives and libertarians are living under the illusion of putting the genie back into the bottle. But, we have developed new institutions before. We’re going to have to do it again. But those institutions will not include universally homogenous property rights. They can’t. Because property rights correspond to the moral intuitions of those that make use of them, and males and females have competing reproductive strategies and corresponding moral codes. In male terms, women are immoral, and vice-versa. Marriage was a truce that worked during agrarianism. That truce is over. We’re back at war. And women have the numbers on their side. Property is the product of the organized application of violence by a minority willing to create it. Property isn’t a moral preference of the majority. The majority are free riders and rent seekers. It’s human nature writ large.
-
GENIES CAN’T BE PUT BACK INTO BOTTLES Classical Liberalism cannot be restored wi
GENIES CAN’T BE PUT BACK INTO BOTTLES
Classical Liberalism cannot be restored with women in the voting pool. Property rights can’t be restored with women voting. It’s not possible. Marriage cannot be restored with high participation rates of women in the work force. Birth rates can’t be restored with women in high participation in the work place. Intergenerational saving can’t be restored because of social programs and tax rates for intergenerational redistribution – boomers spent their income and their grandchildren’s. Immigration can’t be reversed so cultural identity, and civic participation can’t be recreated. Growth can’t be restored with the globalization of the work force. We have consumed much of the low hanging fruit of industrialization and work force participation.
Progressives are philosophically wrong, historically and empirically wrong, and conservatives and libertarians are living under the illusion of putting the genie back into the bottle.
But, we have developed new institutions before. We’re going to have to do it again. But those institutions will not include universally homogenous property rights. They can’t. Because property rights correspond to the moral intuitions of those that make use of them, and males and females have competing reproductive strategies and corresponding moral codes. In male terms, women are immoral, and vice-versa.
Marriage was a truce that worked during agrarianism. That truce is over. We’re back at war. And women have the numbers on their side.
Property is the product of the organized application of violence by a minority willing to create it. Property isn’t a moral preference of the majority. The majority are free riders and rent seekers. It’s human nature writ large.
(Reposted with multiple typos fixed)
Source date (UTC): 2013-07-09 16:42:00 UTC
-
THE CAUSAL PROBLEM OF GOVERNMENT IS THE SAME CAUSAL PROBLEM OF ETHICS: THE INCOR
THE CAUSAL PROBLEM OF GOVERNMENT IS THE SAME CAUSAL PROBLEM OF ETHICS: THE INCORRECTLY ASSUMPTION OF THE VALUE OF MONOPOLY 🙂
Why on earth, would you assume, that ethical principles must assume we agree upon ends? Seriously? Why is it that the study of ethics assumes that there are optimum ends for all? That’s, really, ABSURD on it’s face, isn’t it? I mean. That’s ridiculous. Why not that ethics agree upon means, but not ends? Is ‘group think’ or ‘group-ness’ such an instinct? I think not. I think it is fear of making the wrong decision about which group to belong to. Or simply a cover for theft…
WE have spent millennia now trying to apply the rules of the family and extended family and tribe to the market, and to justify takings, and thefts and redistributions so that there can be a monopoly of ethical statements. But that’s not necessary. The market doesn’t require that at all. We cooperate on means, but not ends. We don’t even largely know wo we’re cooperating with. The same is true in banking. We don’t know what use our money is put to. We cooperate with people in exchange for interest.
The market, and banking, are institutions that help us cooperate on means even if not on ends.
If we instead of monopolies imposing homogeneity via law (commands), our institutions relied upon the voluntary exchange of property (contracts) between GROUPS with different property rights internal to the groups, but consistent across the groups, then
Law and monopoly are means of one class forcing another class. Democracy is an attempt to legitimize forcing transfers between classes. But why can’t our classes conduct exchanges?
There isn’t any reason.
Source date (UTC): 2013-07-08 10:17:00 UTC