Feb 11, 2020, 5:34 PM We either have the right to self determination – or we have the right to extermination. So choose. (I’m happy either way.) Genomes, genetic distributions, institutions, culture, traditions, norms, manners, ethics, morals, laws, history, myth, legend, monuments, territory, are all assets. Some assets are valuable. Some are not. Some are harmful. If we choose to preserve an asset, we do so. 1) We know that moral intuition is genetic, sex biased, and that only trauma can change it – even then only slightly. We know that all traits are somewhere between 70-80% heritable and the rest is idiosyncratic accumulation rather than patterns of environment. 2) We know that class is genetic, with lower classes accumulating more loads (defects), upper middle the fewest, and aside from noble families, the upper classes random lottery results from the middle – but otherwise there is little to no class rotation. 3) We know that moral biases reflect female (herd, infant-equality, devotion, consumption) strategy and the male (pack, mature-hierarchy, loyalty, capitalization) instinct and that females use social superpredation by undermining, and males political superpredation by violence. 4) We know that each of us is born with a bias in female (lateral breadth) vs male(longitudinal velocity) brain structures, and that the stereotype of male analytic and female empathic is physical construction, and that given freedom to do so we pursue interests fitting our bias. 5) We know that at present we are wealthy enough to want to diverge by the female, empathic, equalitarian, consumptive, infantilized, and underdeveloped strategy and some by the male, analytic, hierarchical, capitalizing, and mature strategy. And so we must separate or civil war. 6) Because while you are of the opinion that you reason, you have very little agency. And if you did, and you had knowledge, you would know that the female strategy is dysgenic, the left’s strategy is dysgenic, and standard of living is dependent on the center of the distribution. 7) So if you want to feel harmony in suicide and bring about another dark age of ignorance, this time with social construction of the myth of possible equality, the only result of which will be dysgenia and decline – we are fine with it. But you can’t take the rest of us with you. 8) Some of us are more than semi domesticated animals sensing, perceiving, feeling, experiencing intuiting, and responding to incentives to hyper consume. And some of us are willing to let you turn your cities into dysgenic favelas. Which is what we plan to let you do.
Form: Argument
-
Voting
Feb 12, 2020, 9:50 AM
—“Universal suffrage was a mistake…and practically everyone knew it would have a great cost, but did it anyway because it’s “right”…the cost was exactly what they predicted it would be: the quality of civilization itself.”—Mike Harvey
From Alexander Hamilton:
—“It is also, undeniably, certain, that no Englishman, who can be deemed a free agent in a political view, can be bound by laws, to which he has not consented, either in person, or by his representative. Or, in other words, every Englishman (exclusive of the mercantile and trading part of the nation) who possesses a freehold, to the value of forty shillings per annum, has a right to a share in the legislature, which he exercises, by giving his vote in the election of some person, he approves of, as his representative. “The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own. If these persons had votes, they would be tempted to dispose of them, under some undue influence, or other. This would give a great, an artful, or a wealthy man, a larger share in elections, than is consistent with general liberty. If it were probable, that every man would give his vote, freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of Liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote, in electing those delegates, to whose charge is committed the disposal of his property, his liberty and life. But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order, to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.” Hence it appears, that such “of the people as have no vote in the choice of representatives, and therefore, are govern’d, by laws, to which they have not consented, either by themselves or by their representatives, are only those persons, who are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.” Every free agent, every free man, possessing a freehold of forty shillings per annum, is, by the British constitution, intitled to a vote, in the election of those who are invested with the disposal of his life, his liberty and property.”—
Source: Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, or A more impartial and comprehensive View of the Dispute between Great-Britain and the Colonies. . . . (New York, 1775), in Harold C. Syrett, ed., The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961-1979), 1:81-165.
-
Why It Is so Difficult to Be Wrong when Making a P-Argument.
Feb 24, 2020, 11:47 AM Any evidentiary claim must be either an example (meaning) that is followed by operational construction (falsification), or by non operational correlation, exhaustive evidence, illustrating the limits (falsification). These are the only two search criteria available for scientific(testifiable, due diligence, warrantable) statements. Here is what we do in P: Create a series of references (examples) that define the limits of the constant relations (properties you’re arguing). This usually takes three or more examples. In most cases I use civilizations. We call this disambiguation by serialization and operationalization. Then define or explain the term in the series by stating a constructive argument from a sequence of incentives using physical and natural law. Then falsify it by testing against all eight dimensions. This is the propertarian methodology. And this is why it is so difficult to be wrong when making a P-argument.
-
Why It Is so Difficult to Be Wrong when Making a P-Argument.
Feb 24, 2020, 11:47 AM Any evidentiary claim must be either an example (meaning) that is followed by operational construction (falsification), or by non operational correlation, exhaustive evidence, illustrating the limits (falsification). These are the only two search criteria available for scientific(testifiable, due diligence, warrantable) statements. Here is what we do in P: Create a series of references (examples) that define the limits of the constant relations (properties you’re arguing). This usually takes three or more examples. In most cases I use civilizations. We call this disambiguation by serialization and operationalization. Then define or explain the term in the series by stating a constructive argument from a sequence of incentives using physical and natural law. Then falsify it by testing against all eight dimensions. This is the propertarian methodology. And this is why it is so difficult to be wrong when making a P-argument.
-
Propertarianism is the best case for individualism
Mar 27, 2020, 11:36 AM
—“Propertarianism is the best case for individualism as it establishes the costs. Sovereignty requires agency requires the aptitude to incur and manage the costs.”—Rick Tavi
(CD: Well done. I set out to restore ability, responsibility, un-substitutability, and cost to search for Freedom and Liberty by permission at other’s discretion – resulting in creation of Sovereignty in fact by our decision. I did so because when working on Hoppe I understood argumentation ethics were nonsense. Violence, like boycott, is never, ever, ever off the political table.)
-
Propertarianism is the best case for individualism
Mar 27, 2020, 11:36 AM
—“Propertarianism is the best case for individualism as it establishes the costs. Sovereignty requires agency requires the aptitude to incur and manage the costs.”—Rick Tavi
(CD: Well done. I set out to restore ability, responsibility, un-substitutability, and cost to search for Freedom and Liberty by permission at other’s discretion – resulting in creation of Sovereignty in fact by our decision. I did so because when working on Hoppe I understood argumentation ethics were nonsense. Violence, like boycott, is never, ever, ever off the political table.)
-
No We Cannot Return to Commodity Money
A return to commodity money can’t be done. It privileges investors at the expense of ordinary people, and managing the supply of money is too valuable for an economy. No economy can compete without it. And there are other vehicles for storing capital – including commodity money, real estate, commodities (how oil functions today). Commodity Money has value external to it being used as money. Currency only has value as commodity money substitute. Asking a country not to use currency (shares of stock in the economy) is as ridiculous as telling companies that they can’t issue public shares of stock, nor release additional shares of stock. Like all things, libertarian ideas were attempts to westernize jewish diasporic ethics of the pale that depended upon specializing in extractive usury, and using the proceeds to construct rent seeking, and baiting into hazard. (Falsification of Libertarian Dogma: “What right do you have to the appreciation of the purchasing power of a currency without contributing to the production of that value?” And “What right do you have to the preservation of the purchasing power of a currency?” And “Why does an lender have right to price stability at the expense of the rest of the marketplace?” Those are the three demands that drive the (((usury))) philosophy we call’ libertarianism.)
-
No We Cannot Return to Commodity Money
A return to commodity money can’t be done. It privileges investors at the expense of ordinary people, and managing the supply of money is too valuable for an economy. No economy can compete without it. And there are other vehicles for storing capital – including commodity money, real estate, commodities (how oil functions today). Commodity Money has value external to it being used as money. Currency only has value as commodity money substitute. Asking a country not to use currency (shares of stock in the economy) is as ridiculous as telling companies that they can’t issue public shares of stock, nor release additional shares of stock. Like all things, libertarian ideas were attempts to westernize jewish diasporic ethics of the pale that depended upon specializing in extractive usury, and using the proceeds to construct rent seeking, and baiting into hazard. (Falsification of Libertarian Dogma: “What right do you have to the appreciation of the purchasing power of a currency without contributing to the production of that value?” And “What right do you have to the preservation of the purchasing power of a currency?” And “Why does an lender have right to price stability at the expense of the rest of the marketplace?” Those are the three demands that drive the (((usury))) philosophy we call’ libertarianism.)
-
No, Morality Isn’t Subjective per Se – Just Minor Variation in It Is.
Mar 29, 2020, 11:44 AM
—“…JFG claimed that morality is subjective entirely…”—
Well, I corrected him. Personal moral bias is subjective. We compete with others in a market of moral biases. We converge to reciprocity within our local geographic, demographic, familial, social, economic, and political organizations, and we absolutely converge on reciprocity in international affairs where there is no means of enforcement other than boycott, trade war, or war. Personal Moral Bias > Local Market Moral Bias > World Market Moral bias. We rarely if ever find people who do not engage in reciprocity within the limits of proportionality who are not outcast or imprisoned or worse. So it’s false that we do not practice reciprocity. We just limit the scope of reciprocity that we take to market to avoid others, cooperate with others, or prey upon others. But the differences in our scopes of reciprocity narrow as we approach the global Because the utility of of our choice declines with scale. Sociopaths often practice reciprocity just fine. Because it’s useful. Empathics practice reciprocity just fine, because they intuit it. the difference is that the first is by experience and reason, the second is by biological intuition. A cooperative species – meaning one that can select whether to cooperate or not – cannot survive without moral intuition.
-
No, Morality Isn’t Subjective per Se – Just Minor Variation in It Is.
Mar 29, 2020, 11:44 AM
—“…JFG claimed that morality is subjective entirely…”—
Well, I corrected him. Personal moral bias is subjective. We compete with others in a market of moral biases. We converge to reciprocity within our local geographic, demographic, familial, social, economic, and political organizations, and we absolutely converge on reciprocity in international affairs where there is no means of enforcement other than boycott, trade war, or war. Personal Moral Bias > Local Market Moral Bias > World Market Moral bias. We rarely if ever find people who do not engage in reciprocity within the limits of proportionality who are not outcast or imprisoned or worse. So it’s false that we do not practice reciprocity. We just limit the scope of reciprocity that we take to market to avoid others, cooperate with others, or prey upon others. But the differences in our scopes of reciprocity narrow as we approach the global Because the utility of of our choice declines with scale. Sociopaths often practice reciprocity just fine. Because it’s useful. Empathics practice reciprocity just fine, because they intuit it. the difference is that the first is by experience and reason, the second is by biological intuition. A cooperative species – meaning one that can select whether to cooperate or not – cannot survive without moral intuition.