Game Theory of Sovereignty (by William Butchman) a) Eli’s Theorem: “If you would be SOVEREIGN, you must fight. If you would win, you must confederate. If you would confederate, you must compromise. If you would compromise, you must accept limits on your actions. SOVEREIGNTY will be won only by those who desire to exercise it within limits considered reasonable by their peers.” b) Aristocratic Egalitarianism: Given the non-negotiable necessity of compromise inherit in confederation, Peerage is necessary, meaning that an egalitarianism is inherit within the circle of confederates, members cannot be subordinates under compulsion, members are equals. Conversely, despotism/tyranny destroys the incentive to cooperate thus: execution of tyrants (Julius Caesar). limited monarchy: Magna Carta, constitutional monarchy. c) Meritocracy (open entrance into aristocracy): As the sovereigns (aristocrats) will always be a tiny minority and the demands of sovereignty are great (expensive), a common strategy is to distribute the cost as widely as possible. So, rather than actively suppressing entrance to the Peerage, the incentive to encourage (maximize) entrance by all who display the desire and ability: Meritocracy. d) War: Sovereignty may only be won through martial prowess. e) Science: The high cost of war creates great incentive for an accurate understanding of the physical universe, that military action may be prosecuted successfully. f) Contractualism: The high cost of military action demands that the participants swear oaths of loyalty even to death and then deliver on those oaths, formalized into contracts of cooperation. g) Trust: Inherent in contract, which is a promise to pay, is the concept of trust. (I feel like this is not explanatory enough).
Form: Argument
-
The Game Theory of Sovereignty
Game Theory of Sovereignty (by William Butchman) a) Eli’s Theorem: “If you would be SOVEREIGN, you must fight. If you would win, you must confederate. If you would confederate, you must compromise. If you would compromise, you must accept limits on your actions. SOVEREIGNTY will be won only by those who desire to exercise it within limits considered reasonable by their peers.” b) Aristocratic Egalitarianism: Given the non-negotiable necessity of compromise inherit in confederation, Peerage is necessary, meaning that an egalitarianism is inherit within the circle of confederates, members cannot be subordinates under compulsion, members are equals. Conversely, despotism/tyranny destroys the incentive to cooperate thus: execution of tyrants (Julius Caesar). limited monarchy: Magna Carta, constitutional monarchy. c) Meritocracy (open entrance into aristocracy): As the sovereigns (aristocrats) will always be a tiny minority and the demands of sovereignty are great (expensive), a common strategy is to distribute the cost as widely as possible. So, rather than actively suppressing entrance to the Peerage, the incentive to encourage (maximize) entrance by all who display the desire and ability: Meritocracy. d) War: Sovereignty may only be won through martial prowess. e) Science: The high cost of war creates great incentive for an accurate understanding of the physical universe, that military action may be prosecuted successfully. f) Contractualism: The high cost of military action demands that the participants swear oaths of loyalty even to death and then deliver on those oaths, formalized into contracts of cooperation. g) Trust: Inherent in contract, which is a promise to pay, is the concept of trust. (I feel like this is not explanatory enough).
-
PROPERTARIANISM IN AUSSIE VERNACULAR —-“The only POSSIBLE method for knowing t
PROPERTARIANISM IN AUSSIE VERNACULAR
—-“The only POSSIBLE method for knowing truth is to understand history! Why? Its not f’ing possible to know the truth about the future. It hasn’t happened yet and we don’t have a time machine, yet. heh 🙂
Therefore. Anyone that claims to know truth and knows f all about history?… MUST start by making up or repeating lies they’ve believed.
And that makes it very bloody hard to “discover” truth. As possible sources of truth are slowly eliminated, one by one as you come across “believers”. And this is a f’ing massive problem.
Very few people ask why do you believe, what you believe?
And as the questions get knocked off by answers? You get closer to truth. Notice?!? You’re asking yourself! 😉
You’re not asking the Gossiper over the fence. You’re not asking the blokes down the pub.
Who convinced you to believe, what you believe, and what could their motivation be for your continuing belief, or their benefit? ;-)”—-Nick Heywood
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-13 09:19:00 UTC
-
CONSERVATIVES, LIBERTARIANS, ANCAPS, NRX, ALT-RIGHT, … JUST ASK QUESTIONS. OK?
CONSERVATIVES, LIBERTARIANS, ANCAPS, NRX, ALT-RIGHT, … JUST ASK QUESTIONS. OK?
I know. I know. Some of you are overconfident evangelicals for your cause. But please, save us both the tedium and ask questions if you don’t understand what I (we) talk about. Please don’t think you’re going to put together a witty argument. A cunning refutation. A creative deceit. It won’t happen. It just won’t. I’ve been working on this problem for a very long time now. And you just are wasting both our time.
There is a reason everyone seems to progress from classical liberal or conservative, to libertarian, to ancap, to nrx, to alt-right to propertarianism.
So on your journey, your fellow travelers ask that you impose the lowest cost upon us. Just ask questions. “We argue this, you argue that, why do you think you’re right?” is a really good way of asking questions.
Hoppe is no dummy. Rothbard was no dummy. Mises was no dummy. Hayek and Popper were not dummies. If some of these people were fooled by some of the rhetoric, you shouldn’t feel bad for being fooled by it either.
We didn’t have a sufficient understanding of what we call the scientific method until very recently. We didn’t have an undrestanding of computability until very recently. We didn’t have an understanding of truth until recently. So these people were prisoners of their eras. We are the beneficiaries of an additional generation or two.
Propertarianism is a profoundly thorough system of philosophy(decidability) as far as the negative(decidability) is concerned – I rely on literature for the positive(ideation and inspiration). I don’t do all that much inspiration. I just do true and false.
If you want liberty in fact, rather than some semblance of liberty by permission there is only one way to create it: Sovereignty+Heroism -> Natural Law -> Markets In Everything => Conditions of Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom and Subsidy.
That’s how it is. Either you can create a polity of self sustaining non-parasitic peoples in a territory that can serve as a market, and one that other peoples will tolerate, or you won’t. You can’t do it by low trust ethics. it’s not complicated.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-12 17:22:00 UTC
-
Cooperation boils down to property transfer? Via negativa. It’s more that the vi
Cooperation boils down to property transfer?
Via negativa.
It’s more that the violations of cooperation boil down to involuntary transfer of property.
We cannot imagine all the ways we can cooperate.
We can however, catalog all the ways we had found to irritate. 😉
By avoiding the false and bad and ugly we leave room for all varieties of true, good, and beautiful
We have been programming ourselves forever for finding cooperation and rallying cooperation (via positiva). The problem of calorie shortage reinforces the value of that strategy.
But we are not living in an era of calorie shortage where we must IDENTIFY opportunities, and instead, in an era where we CHOOSE FROM plentiful opportunities by eliminating error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit.
I think this change from rallying to criticism is very important. A very important change in thought.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-12 01:54:00 UTC
-
Constitutional Convention? How about Hanging-Trees?
ON LIBERAL CALLS FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: WE HAVE OTHER IDEAS – HANGING TREES FOR THE LIARS. No we are not having a constitutional convention. 1) Liberals have destroyed the constitution’s rule of law by arguing that we can pass whatever laws we want. The 14th amendment alone invalidated the constitution. What damage wasn’t done then was done by the income tax. What wasn’t done then was done by Roosevelt’s threat to stack the supreme court if we didn’t enact social security. If we can pass abortion, gay marriage, and obamacare, and if we have circumvented the amendment and convention process, then rule of law no longer exists. the government exists only out of habit, and simply hasn’t created enough discord to cause a revolution – until now.2) So lets just skip yet another leftist lie. There is no united states any longer, because there is no constitution any longer, because there is no rule of law any longer, because the liberals destroyed rule of law in order to destroy the united states by achieving through immigration of the third world against the will of the people in order to destroy the united states by an act of fraud.. 3) So here is what we suggest: the moment you call for a convention you’re declaring war. And we WANT a war. We love war. It is our greatest achievement after truth. We can agree that the undesirable states with the immigrant cities leave the union, freeing us from generations of accumulated debt and expense, and cultural and genetic conquest. Preserving the government. Or we can remove all federal legislation and return it to the states, and dissolve the supreme court, the congress and the presidency, leaving only the Military, the Treasury, and The Insurer of Last Resort, to be managed by a board of the governors. Or we will end the united states and devolve into separate regional polities that reflect regional cultures, and abandon the federal government entirely, returning all powers and functions to the regions or states. Or we can start a civil war, kill as many of each other and the members of the government that we can – and let the chips fall where they may. But what we will NOT do is allow the liberals to use the pretense of rule of law to engineer a conquest of our people, culture, and territories We’ll kill all of you first – and revel in it. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
Constitutional Convention? How about Hanging-Trees?
ON LIBERAL CALLS FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: WE HAVE OTHER IDEAS – HANGING TREES FOR THE LIARS. No we are not having a constitutional convention. 1) Liberals have destroyed the constitution’s rule of law by arguing that we can pass whatever laws we want. The 14th amendment alone invalidated the constitution. What damage wasn’t done then was done by the income tax. What wasn’t done then was done by Roosevelt’s threat to stack the supreme court if we didn’t enact social security. If we can pass abortion, gay marriage, and obamacare, and if we have circumvented the amendment and convention process, then rule of law no longer exists. the government exists only out of habit, and simply hasn’t created enough discord to cause a revolution – until now.2) So lets just skip yet another leftist lie. There is no united states any longer, because there is no constitution any longer, because there is no rule of law any longer, because the liberals destroyed rule of law in order to destroy the united states by achieving through immigration of the third world against the will of the people in order to destroy the united states by an act of fraud.. 3) So here is what we suggest: the moment you call for a convention you’re declaring war. And we WANT a war. We love war. It is our greatest achievement after truth. We can agree that the undesirable states with the immigrant cities leave the union, freeing us from generations of accumulated debt and expense, and cultural and genetic conquest. Preserving the government. Or we can remove all federal legislation and return it to the states, and dissolve the supreme court, the congress and the presidency, leaving only the Military, the Treasury, and The Insurer of Last Resort, to be managed by a board of the governors. Or we will end the united states and devolve into separate regional polities that reflect regional cultures, and abandon the federal government entirely, returning all powers and functions to the regions or states. Or we can start a civil war, kill as many of each other and the members of the government that we can – and let the chips fall where they may. But what we will NOT do is allow the liberals to use the pretense of rule of law to engineer a conquest of our people, culture, and territories We’ll kill all of you first – and revel in it. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
The Why of Shrinking Brains
SHRINKING BRAIN SIZE, PAEDOMORPHIC SELECTION, OR FASTER REPRODUCTION OF THE UNDERCLASSES? http://www.ancient-origins.net/…/scientists-are-alarmed-shr… Given that (a) yes, brain size makes a demonstrable difference in current human intelligence.
And given that (b) it’s unclear whether our brains are getting smaller or whether more of the smaller humans are breeding in cities. (which appears to be the case since cities are genetic and IQ sinks). And given that (c) we have been selecting for immaturity for 10K years (paedomorphic selection). And given that (d) women generally possess superior verbal skills and weaker modeling skills despite smaller brains. I would hypothesize that all of the above are driving down AVERAGE brain size. I would suggest we will saw additional paedomorphic selection domestication up and until the period of ‘Peak Human’ which I suspect was around 1500 bc. And that at present we are seeing a rapid expansion of dysgenic classes, tilting the data dramatically. Unfortunately I suspect that the initial shift caused by the adoption of general rules (science) rather than rules of specific cases (recipes), as well as the reduction in the malnutrition at the bottom (left) of the curve, means that the downward shift in genetic IQ and brain size from underclass reproduction is being hidden by the Flynn effect. But in real terms, on average we are getting smaller, more verbal brains, and a lot more dumb people breeding. Curt Doolittle -
The Why of Shrinking Brains
SHRINKING BRAIN SIZE, PAEDOMORPHIC SELECTION, OR FASTER REPRODUCTION OF THE UNDERCLASSES? http://www.ancient-origins.net/…/scientists-are-alarmed-shr… Given that (a) yes, brain size makes a demonstrable difference in current human intelligence.
And given that (b) it’s unclear whether our brains are getting smaller or whether more of the smaller humans are breeding in cities. (which appears to be the case since cities are genetic and IQ sinks). And given that (c) we have been selecting for immaturity for 10K years (paedomorphic selection). And given that (d) women generally possess superior verbal skills and weaker modeling skills despite smaller brains. I would hypothesize that all of the above are driving down AVERAGE brain size. I would suggest we will saw additional paedomorphic selection domestication up and until the period of ‘Peak Human’ which I suspect was around 1500 bc. And that at present we are seeing a rapid expansion of dysgenic classes, tilting the data dramatically. Unfortunately I suspect that the initial shift caused by the adoption of general rules (science) rather than rules of specific cases (recipes), as well as the reduction in the malnutrition at the bottom (left) of the curve, means that the downward shift in genetic IQ and brain size from underclass reproduction is being hidden by the Flynn effect. But in real terms, on average we are getting smaller, more verbal brains, and a lot more dumb people breeding. Curt Doolittle -
IF YOU WANT TO FALSIFY YOUR BELIEFS (TEST THEM) THEN YOU MUST ATTACK THEM. I att
IF YOU WANT TO FALSIFY YOUR BELIEFS (TEST THEM) THEN YOU MUST ATTACK THEM.
I attack all sorts of things that I cherish. And I do it ruthlessly. And only those readers of Popper probably understand what I’m doing.
You cannot replace the church. You can only replace it’s falsehoods.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-08 17:12:00 UTC