Ownership of the commons by paying taxes is just another fallacy of the labor theory of value. The ‘ownership’ of a polity is objectively that of those who fight. Period. Everyone else is a rentier, and taxes are their method of paying rent.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-28 14:20:00 UTC
WISE UP: NATURAL LAW *WILL* SAVE THE WEST AND EMPOWER IT.
—“I’ve read on natural law and I still don’t understand it. Sounds like a cover all for social pseudo-science that sounds clever.”— A Friend.
You should have stopped with ‘i don’t understand it’. Because that’s all you can honestly say.
Either you believe your people are in fact superior and can out-compete others if they eliminate the ability to engage in parasitism, or you admit that they are inferior. There is no way out of it.
I think every thinking person is aware that this is my point. We discovered and use natural law because we CAN use it.
But you might also want to look at the evolution of natural law (of cooperation) just as we look at the evolution of physical laws (of nature). And as such you may have an archaic understanding of it.
So my position is (empirically), that western civilization AND western peoples are superior – although I attribute that superiority to the result of civilization more so than original genetics (i might be wrong).
And that under natural law, the lesser peoples cannot compete. And instead of preserving our current vulnerability to those lesser peoples, I want to FIX OUR VULNERABILITY by the institution of natural law, so that no other peoples CAN do what they have done, and our ‘betrayers’ internally cannot do what they have done.
This means we pay the cost of ending Christianity as the germans have tried to at least three times now.
Because christianity is the door through which we have been defeated twice.
We cannot leave open that door – or any door that allows the unfit to argue, to act, or to profit.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-28 12:17:00 UTC
NO IT’S NOT SOCIALISM IT”S BANKING AND INVESTING ON A NATIONAL SCALE
–“What if I told you that any government ownership of industry is socialism?’— (a well meaning fool)
That is not true. Any government ownership is separate from government management. Any management at cost (loss), at non-profit, and for profit determines returns for shareholders. The empirical evidence is that government investment in research and development, and in serving as financier and insurer of last resort has be disproportionately beneficial for peoples. We might argue instead that it is *necessary*. The only question is whether the government forces a monopoly or partial monopoly in favor of such an industry, and whether the management operates at a loss, at non-profit, or for profit. And whether those profits are distributed to employees, managers, or owners (citizens). In fact, we should, as citizens, ask why the majority of investment returns are not returned to the commons (government) for use by the citizenry when government (citizens) provide funding and insurance of last resort. In other words, the financial sector as it is structured today other than as early stage investors, appears to be parasitic upon those institutions (industries) for which the government serves as both financier and insurer of last resort.
The question is whether government manages (bad) or not. Not whether government invests or not.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-28 11:59:00 UTC
YOU ARE MAKING A MISTAKE
(re other, older, civilizations)
You are all making the same mistake between innovation (which is a function of wealth available for investment) and what one DOES with that innovation. The question remains: why did china stagnate (we know). Why did India stagnate (we know). Why did judaism stagnate (we know), Why did islam stagnate (we know). Why did christianity stagnate (we know). And why did the west recover in the modern world (we know).
The west isn’t always first. We are however FASTEST.
From the age of the chariot to the present, that is what separates the west from the rest: we use truth to outmaneuver opposition regardless of threat to the dominance hierarchy – and we can do so because we maintain many small markets that constantly adapt, rather than a large bureaucracy that calcifies.
There is no comparison to the west, and the only one even close is china. The optimum for western civilization would be either the west builds a great wall against the steppe and desert tribal peoples (primitives), as has china, and stay within our boundaries as has china, or to complete our transformation of the planet, but WITHOUT integrating with the local peoples.
Our attempt at discount: the best of both worlds, which is the problem in the ancient world and in our modern, is to assume that primitive peoples are able to exist in, or operate, high trust polities with markets that present consistent threats to the dominance hierarchy. As far as I know, only the west is able to do so.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-28 11:40:00 UTC
NON PROBLEM OF PHILOSOPHY #1: “WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING”.
This is an illogical question – another pseudo-rational word game. A conflation of the ideal and the real. In order to ask this question, something must exist – namely the person asking the question – and we must be able to identify some ‘nothing’ to refer to. The word nothing, as far as I know, can only mean ‘nothing exists of consequence’ not the absence of existence. So, as far as I know, ‘nothing’ is impossible. In other words, nothing still requires existence (persistence) of whatever you call ‘nothing’ in contrast to ‘something’. I can’t imagine any ‘nothing’ that isn’t ‘something’ or a category of something within something. I can imagine various combinations of ignorance, error and falsehood. But I can’t imagine something that both exists (a referent of nothing) and does not exist at the same time. In other words, this is another problem of nonsense language. If operationally stated we find: “If I can perceive persistence, then why does that which I perceive persist? And so far we are at least close enough to an answer that we can say something always persists, the question is reducible to (a) what is its lifecycle? And (b) is that lifecycle unique, iterative, or a subset of a larger lifecycle?
I keep a catalog of the kinds of bias and error man man suffers from in each era of his evolution of his knowledge. And if we subtract the theories reliant upon the errors and biases man suffers from, and leave only those theories that reflect constant simple observable laws of the universe, then the universe is merely constructed from a portfolio of positive and negative forces that act upon one another, and is constructed of a regular geometry of those forces little different from the ordinary universe we perceive at human scale, with the remote possibility that some of those forces propagate at speeds different from (both faster and slower) than the electromagnetic spectrum that we are currently able to react to and act upon.
The error (evil) of platonism (Idealism) exists everywhere, just like the other forms of fictionalism. But just as categories must be tested by logic, and logic tested by correspondence, and correspondence tested by operations, and operations tested by full accounting, fictionalism cannot survive tests of operational construction. Whether that fictionalism be the supernatural(pseudo mythical), the ideal (pseudo-real), the pseudo-rational, or the pseudo-scientific. The reason all those forms of fictionalism exist, is simply the failure to fully test the available dimensions against ignorance, error, bias and deceit.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-27 20:00:00 UTC
YOU DON’T AGREE WITH NATURAL LAW, OR GRAVITY. YOU HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO DENY THEM.
Was thinking about this statement:
—“It’s kinda funny getting into movements that require you to acknowledge natural law.”—
Well, I just want to riff off this a sec and say that one does not agree with natural law. One has to attempt to falsify it. And since i think that’s nearly impossible, it’s very difficult to DENY. And unlike life after death or reincarnation you can testify to reciprocity. So it’s about the hardest thing to deny other than the effects of gravity.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-27 09:06:00 UTC
That we need markets so that we can cooperate on means if not ends, and that we need markets for commons so we can produce commons necessary for the differences in our distributions is hard to argue with.
The question is whether we need variation in the law by which we reconcile disputes, and whether we need variation in truth vs falsehoods. While it is possible to speak truthfully in most modern languages with some effort, it is not clear that cooperation is possible between the more truthful and higher trust polity, and the less truthful and lower trust polity. Or between polities that are both low trust and both high in falsehoods but that are incompatible because those differences are irreconcilable.
All humans can cooperate perfectly under aristotelian (testimonial) truth, perfect reciprocity, and markets of voluntary cooperation. But this means that those of the best genetic ability will eventually replace those that are less so. So there is group evolutionary advantage to hostility, differences, uncooperativeness, falsehood, and deceits.
Which is what we see…
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-27 07:31:00 UTC
NO REVOLUTIONS DON’T HAPPEN SPONTANEOUSLY
—“revolutions happen spontaneously. why are you typing rather than doing something! ( yadda, yadda, yadda ) “—-
Empirically test that bullshit. We have a deep literature on every revolution of any consequence in recorded history. They are all constructed. They are constructed gradually over time. They are generally constructed by members of the middle class who figure out how to employ the lower classes in achieving leadership rotation between upper middle class members.
I sit on a keyboard because Paine used pen and the manual printing press. Hamilton used pen and newspaper. Rousseau used a pen and books; marx used a pen and pamphlets, and adorno used a typewriter and propaganda, and the IRA used typewriter and mimeograph machines, and the muslims use email, web sites, twitter, and instant messaging – you twit. It’s the 21st century. THIS IS HOW IT IS DONE. Or maybe you weren’t smart enough to watch the progress of the Ukrainian revolution and the islamic revolutions, and the ongoing south american revolutions.
War is profitable, necessary, and the natural extension of politics. (if you were literate you would know that.
All organizations over-extend themselves to the point where all rents are maximized and there exists no free capital for the purpose of adapting to shocks or accumulated change.
Our current condition is the result largely of leftist pseudoscience combined with vast immoral financialization that preys upon the productive people at the expense of their late life survival.
It’s alterable. Easily. And you know what – the people are going to go along with it assuming we create enough chaos that the state cannot resist.
And so far I’m the only guy walking the planet with a plan. So learn something munchkin. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-26 12:03:00 UTC
TRUTH IS A DISINCENTIVE FOR ‘OTHERS’ AND AN INCENTIVE FOR US
Truth in public speech will impose a cost on us. It will impose nothing more than the cost of additional effort on the right. It will impose a very high cost on the left, especially the (((professional))) left – an intolerable one. It will impose such an intolerable cost on parasites that they will leave. And it will impose an intolerable cost on those who invade to degrade our civilization, that they will never want to come. Meanwhile, we will get nothing but wealthier, and we will again evolve our civilization under truthful public speech in matters of the commons as we did by truthful speech that we call ‘science’ in matters of the physical world.
We have a ‘stupid’ contingent of our own. A pretty big one. And always have. But the ‘stupid’ contingent can only live above its station if their elites (us) drag them along with us.
So while the ‘stupid’ contingent is a problem for us when they even glance in our direction, they do place a burden on parasitic leftist speech, they have been successful in disrupting the leftist narrative, and in the end, they will either take to the streets and help, or not.
As usual, the radicals take to the street first and the others follow once they think there is a chance of success.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-26 11:19:00 UTC
FEELING VS KNOWING – THE GREAT GENDER DIVIDE
A man’s first instinct is to question whether something is true. A woman’s first instinct is to question whether something is desirable. A man’s first instinct is to describe a distribution. A woman’s first instinct is to describe a uniformity. A man’s first instinct is to question whether someone will obtain a valuable advantage. A woman’s first instinct is to question whether someone’s being left behind. In the main, without extraordinary training, women are of zero or negative value in politics for these reasons. They will weaken and destroy a polity. Why? Because women evolved to pre-rationally intuit to a degree we call ‘panic’ whether her offspring will be left behind by the needs of the tribe. And women are less able to disconnect the emotional from the rational in matters political. Women simply possess less agency. And if they didn’t, we wouldn’t exist today.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-26 09:09:00 UTC