Opinions on this are irrelevant, since the data is overwhelming, the resarch substantial, and it’s quite clear that people vote race, gender, and marital status. In other words – their reproductive strategy.
https://www.quora.com/As-a-voter-do-your-values-inform-your-politics-or-do-your-politics-remodel-your-values
Racism is impolitic to talk about because of political correctness, but intermarriage has had no effect racism, and multi-racism, and multi-culturism, and now poly-legalism, and poly-logism have increased.
The net effect will be the continuation of the ‘Big Sort’ until america fragments into different nations under some shock that the federal government cannot respond to and the nation divides.
https://www.quora.com/Has-intermarriage-and-the-offspring-it-produces-had-any-effect-on-the-level-of-racism-in-your-country
Enfranchising:
without :
The english system of multiple houses created a market for the construction of commons between the classes. Creating majoritarian single-house democracy created majority tyranny, and put the lowest classes with the largest numbers in control of government and has destroyed western civilizations’ historical dependence upon empiricism in under a century.
This required we basically develop propaganda, ideology, and deception in order to rule underclasses by vote.
This single decision, made in the euphoria of the proceeds of the industrial revolution, caused the destruction of western civilization.
https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-worst-mistake-in-a-Democracy
Kin selection. Family, Kin, Kith, Tribe, Nation, Race. Humans remain tribal. We reside in tribal groups. We mate in tribal groups. We create friendships in tribal groups (often within very narrow genetic distances). We work in tribal groups. We organize reproductively, socially, economically, politically, and religio-militarily in tribal – meaning kinship – groups.
There is political value in the attempted utopian-socialist era we still live in, to create a mythos of universalism. But this survives is only because man is a rationally self interested creatures, and the lower classes will choose the female reproductive strategy (universalism) under alpha-threats, and choose male reproductive strategy (tribalism) under threats from competing underclass threats.
This explains all of world political tensions at the moment.
https://www.quora.com/Where-does-nationalism-come-from
Racism is impolitic to talk about because of political correctness, but intermarriage has had no effect racism, and multi-racism, and multi-culturism, and now poly-legalism, and poly-logism have increased.
The net effect will be the continuation of the ‘Big Sort’ until america fragments into different nations under some shock that the federal government cannot respond to and the nation divides.
https://www.quora.com/Has-intermarriage-and-the-offspring-it-produces-had-any-effect-on-the-level-of-racism-in-your-country
Kin selection. Family, Kin, Kith, Tribe, Nation, Race. Humans remain tribal. We reside in tribal groups. We mate in tribal groups. We create friendships in tribal groups (often within very narrow genetic distances). We work in tribal groups. We organize reproductively, socially, economically, politically, and religio-militarily in tribal – meaning kinship – groups.
There is political value in the attempted utopian-socialist era we still live in, to create a mythos of universalism. But this survives is only because man is a rationally self interested creatures, and the lower classes will choose the female reproductive strategy (universalism) under alpha-threats, and choose male reproductive strategy (tribalism) under threats from competing underclass threats.
This explains all of world political tensions at the moment.
https://www.quora.com/Where-does-nationalism-come-from
—“Which libertarian model do you believe in?”—
[R]emember that the way you test a theory is not way finding to justify it but like composing a novel throwing obstacles in front of to see if it can survive.
It does not matter what we believe. It matters only what order can survive in completion with other orders.
Libertarians spend a lot of time discussing the best taste, but no one has yet succeeded in baking a libertarian cake.
There is a reason why libertarians discuss belief and taste and not action and recipe.
It’s because any attempt to construct the recipe informs the analyst that it cannot result in such a cake.
Libertarianism like socialism and neoconservatism is just a utopian secular religion and not an institutional model that can survive competition in a market for polities.
We talk about markets but we do not model our own intellectual product by the same standard.
—“Which libertarian model do you believe in?”—
[R]emember that the way you test a theory is not way finding to justify it but like composing a novel throwing obstacles in front of to see if it can survive.
It does not matter what we believe. It matters only what order can survive in completion with other orders.
Libertarians spend a lot of time discussing the best taste, but no one has yet succeeded in baking a libertarian cake.
There is a reason why libertarians discuss belief and taste and not action and recipe.
It’s because any attempt to construct the recipe informs the analyst that it cannot result in such a cake.
Libertarianism like socialism and neoconservatism is just a utopian secular religion and not an institutional model that can survive competition in a market for polities.
We talk about markets but we do not model our own intellectual product by the same standard.
—“How would an Anarcho Capitalist society look like, in the long run?”—
[L]et’s take a look:
(a) Libertines (anarcho capitalists) differ from libertarians (jeffersonian contractualists), where Contractualist Libertarian = do no harm to the commons, and anarchist libertine = do no good to the commons. This is the underlying principle of decidability in libertinism (anarcho capitalism): avoid costs of physical, normative, an cultural commons, where the principle of decidability in libertarianism is merely the prohibition on the imposition of costs that would cause retaliation.
(b) no anarcho capitalist polity can form out of rational economic incentives because without commons and territory on low cost trading routes, any such polity must be endogenously parasitic.
(c) no anarcho capitalist can retain desirable, productive individuals in competition with other societies that do produce commons that add multipliers to the market for reproduction and production.
(d) any anarcho capitalist polity that did survive would be limited to endogenously parasitic members, and those polities that bore the parasitism would eventually, when in a period of stress, colonize, conquer, or destroy such a polity (pirates, drug dealers, money launderers etc).
(e) Ergo no anarcho capitalist society is possible -and its arguable whether one was desirable. If you need a nearly lawless borderland and will bear the costs to consumption of living there, then go. Antartica, Siberia, and canada contain vast areas of unused territory because it has not economic value higher than it’s costs of survival in harsh conditions.
The only possible liberty is that of the anglo saxons: contractualism. And the only means of achieving it is to eliminate demand for the state as a suppressor of aggression and retaliation by the use of the common law to prohibit the imposition of costs on life, kin, relations, things, built capital, norms, traditions, and institutions.
There is only one possible form of liberty then: the only social science man has discovered: rule of law, natural law, common judge discovered law, universal enfranchisement, and universal accountability, and universal reciprocal insurance.
Curt
—“How would an Anarcho Capitalist society look like, in the long run?”—
[L]et’s take a look:
(a) Libertines (anarcho capitalists) differ from libertarians (jeffersonian contractualists), where Contractualist Libertarian = do no harm to the commons, and anarchist libertine = do no good to the commons. This is the underlying principle of decidability in libertinism (anarcho capitalism): avoid costs of physical, normative, an cultural commons, where the principle of decidability in libertarianism is merely the prohibition on the imposition of costs that would cause retaliation.
(b) no anarcho capitalist polity can form out of rational economic incentives because without commons and territory on low cost trading routes, any such polity must be endogenously parasitic.
(c) no anarcho capitalist can retain desirable, productive individuals in competition with other societies that do produce commons that add multipliers to the market for reproduction and production.
(d) any anarcho capitalist polity that did survive would be limited to endogenously parasitic members, and those polities that bore the parasitism would eventually, when in a period of stress, colonize, conquer, or destroy such a polity (pirates, drug dealers, money launderers etc).
(e) Ergo no anarcho capitalist society is possible -and its arguable whether one was desirable. If you need a nearly lawless borderland and will bear the costs to consumption of living there, then go. Antartica, Siberia, and canada contain vast areas of unused territory because it has not economic value higher than it’s costs of survival in harsh conditions.
The only possible liberty is that of the anglo saxons: contractualism. And the only means of achieving it is to eliminate demand for the state as a suppressor of aggression and retaliation by the use of the common law to prohibit the imposition of costs on life, kin, relations, things, built capital, norms, traditions, and institutions.
There is only one possible form of liberty then: the only social science man has discovered: rule of law, natural law, common judge discovered law, universal enfranchisement, and universal accountability, and universal reciprocal insurance.
Curt