Form: Mini Essay

  • WITCH TRIALS. WHY? AFAIK the increase in witch trials was an extension of the in

    WITCH TRIALS. WHY?

    AFAIK the increase in witch trials was an extension of the inquisition, then the reformation, as a means of creating examples by suppressing newly enabled social dissent under the decline of the influence of the church and the personalization of the religious experience by disintermediation from the priesthood. There isn’t really a consensus on it, but my rough understanding is that as wealth increased and local agency increased we saw the the protestant reformation put more control in the local hands at all levels – including religious. About 80% of prosecutions were of women, and most in central europe (germanic) countries. And women were uneducated and … uneducated women (as we see in daily videos) .. and as evidenced by asylum populations (mostly women), and current mental health statistics, were as disruptive in the past with psychosis as they are today – just like males -although we control males aggressively and we don’t control anti-social behavior in females. In other words I interpret it as a puritan reaction to the transfer of power of catholic inquisition to protestant hands, and the ‘fashion’ of exercising that power, until it was rather obvious that it was out of hand, and (a) judges would no longer accept testimony obtained under torture, (b) it was increasingly outlawed.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-24 09:41:00 UTC

  • I love christian manners: “god bless you” et all. I am equally happy with ‘the g

    I love christian manners: “god bless you” et all. I am equally happy with ‘the gods’ instead of ‘god’, and equally unhappy and hostile to the other semitic gods. I love christian ethics. and I love christian behavior. And I love the church experience. And i love it’s role in birth, adulthood, marriage, care-taking, suffering, and death. I wish it still retained juris over the matters of the family.

    And My experience with education by the church was far superior to that of the state – by orders of magnitude. Personally I would prefer a military experience more suitable to males. And I know some would value sports, or arts, or commercial experiences. And I know I would prefer to find old gods, heroes, artists, scientists, and saints in my Church with Jesus but one among them. And I would find prayer to them more valuable than to those I find feminine. And yes I would prefer the stoic method of discipline rather than submission to a semitic god. I would prefer we celebrate love our heathen(nature) and pagan(masculine) as well as christian (feminine) holidays.

    But that said, while there are many good social and personal consequences of the religion, christianity failed us politically – it had to – the church could not survive the restoration of aristotelianism and its consequences no mater how hard the theologians tried.

    And worse, the church failed to reform. And the catholic church’s pope has now our declared the church our enemy. Orthodoxy is too weak in the west. Protestantism thankfully has evolved into a folk religion, especially with the advent of American evangelicals. I think I understand where this will lead and it is beautiful.

    But first we must solve real problems that are unavoidable: ending another conquest by hostile alien political systems masquerading as religions. Ending the destruction of our civilization by the second attempt at undermining us using the abrahamic methods of deceit – this time in secular prose, as well as fundamentalist semitic prose. And second we must solve the failure of our religion to merge the aristotelian-legal, moral-rational-political, masculine religion, and feminine religion.

    I can only describe the problem I do not have the skill or talent or mind to provide a solution other than the incentives for others with appropriate skills and talents, to bring a religious system across that spectrum into fruition. Although maybe if I live long enough it will be possible.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-23 19:39:00 UTC

  • ARGUMENTUM AD THEOLOGICUM (yes it’s possible. it’s just almost impossible) We al

    ARGUMENTUM AD THEOLOGICUM

    (yes it’s possible. it’s just almost impossible)

    We all defend our investments. it’s irrational to think we won’t defend our investments. As long as that’s what we’re doing, it’s not ir-reciprocal.

    In my understanding, theology is just one of the grammars. it’s both conflationary, and fictionalist, using the supernatural fictionalism, but that doesn’t mean statements within it can’t be disambiguated, de-fictionalized, operationalized, and converted to statements of physical and natural law.

    We only come into conflcit when the disambiguated, defictionalized, operationalized, and tested for reciprocity exposes an involuntary transfer.

    When disambiguating, defictionalizing, nd operationalizing we take for granted we can test for:

    (a) identity (b) internal consistency, (c) rational choice, (d) and reciprocal rational choice, and possibly (e) full accounting …

    … Even if we cannot test for (f) external correspondence, (g) operational possibility, and (h) parsimony.

    … And within reciprocity we may test for (j) productivity, (k) voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, and (l) involuntary transfer by externality, (m) and whether one has performed that due diligence, and (n ) whether one can perform restitution.

    So it’s not like we can’t largely test theological words. It’s mostly whether any argument demanding deduction that is dependent upon theological terms is possible. In other words, it may be possible to make ethical statements in theology it is however, extremely difficult to make arguments from them. It’s not impossible. It just appears very uncommon.

    There are many true and reciprocal statements in theology.

    There are very few if any true and reciprocal arguments.

    That’s the nature of the problem of fictional premises.

    Not much to do about it.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-23 18:20:00 UTC

  • THE ONLY TEST IS DEMONSTRATED BEHAVIOR —“Values testing to become a citizen of

    THE ONLY TEST IS DEMONSTRATED BEHAVIOR

    —“Values testing to become a citizen of P-topia?”—Andrew M Gilmour

    The Propertarian Institute We don’t need to do anything except create a law, and universal standing, that prosecutes falsehood and irreciprocity such that we create a market for the prosecution of those who do so.

    The only test is demonstrated behavior.

    Let em in.

    Crucify the violators.

    Until there are no violators.

    In other words, common law is permissive with heavy punishment in order to allow the greatest fastest adaptation to opportunity.

    Continental law is reculatory and restrictive, with limited punishments in order to limit conflicts at the expense of adaptation to opportunity.

    Other law codes only get worse from continanal on down.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-23 17:36:00 UTC

  • ENGLISH COMMON LAW Common law developed after the Norman Conquest of England. In

    ENGLISH COMMON LAW

    Common law developed after the Norman Conquest of England. In 1066 England was peopled with Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Danes, Celts, Jutes, and other groups who were suddenly ruled by French-speaking Normans. Most law at the time was customary law that had been handed down orally from generation to generation.

    In addition there were the legal code of Alfred the Great, which was biblical in nature, and the Danelaw of the Vikings and Danes. Most of the courts were communal courts (folk-moot), the hundred and shire courts, and baronial, or manorial, courts administering justice in the interest of the local nobility.

    Immediately after the Norman Conquest the king would hear cases coram rege (before the king) that involved royal interests. However, the king with the royal court tended to be on the move in England or away in France. Consequently the legal work was soon delegated to an appointed tribunal, the Curia Regis. From it came the three royal common law courts that were used to unify the kingdom.

    The first of the royal common law courts was the Exchequer. Originally concerned with the collection of taxes and the administration of royal finances, by 1250 it had become a court exercising full judicial powers. The second royal common law court to develop was the Court of Common Pleas (or Common Bench), which was probably established during the reign of Henry II (1154–1189).

    This court heard cases that did not involve the king’s rights. It was firmly established at Westminster after King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta in 1215. The third royal common law court to evolve from the Curia Regis was the King’s Bench. Eventually this court heard cases involving the king’s interests, criminal matters, and cases affecting the high nobility. It also developed the practice of issuing writs of error for review of cases decided in Common Pleas.

    One factor promoting the development of the common law courts was their ability to settle land disputes. All of the land in England belonged to the king by right of conquest. He then awarded it to his vassals to hold and utilize in exchange for loyalty and for services. Because economic production was almost exclusively agricultural, title to the use of land was extremely valuable.

    Disputes over who was entitled to possess land created innumerable cases. As the justices in Eyre traveled their assigned circuits to hold court, they would decide cases using the Bible, canon law, and most especially reasoning applied to the customary law of that place. When the judges returned to London they would go to their places of permanent residence in taverns or cloisters.

    These residences of the judges, who were often monks or bachelors, eventually became the Inns of Court, where cases were heard and experts were trained in law. In the course of over 200 years the judges “discovered” the law common to all the people of England. The belief was that underlying the thicket of unwritten customary law was a common foundation that could be discovered by reason.

    In effect the judges were developing legal principles or laws as they made judicial rulings in particular cases. Among the principles of the common law are stare decisis (let the decision stand). Stare decisis means that a judge in deciding a case should look to similar cases from the past for guidance. The use of similar cases is itself a legal principle, namely, that like cases should be tried alike.

    However in the absence of a precedent setting rule the judge would in effect “legislate” and create a new rule. This meant that the common law was case law or judge-made law created by legal reasoning about legal problems. It was well established centuries before the rise of Parliament.

    The developing common law had the virtue of stability; however, it lacked flexibility. To bring a case into a common law court was often too costly for common people. The common law courts also moved slowly; that could mean that justice delayed was justice denied. To lodge a complaint in a common law court an appropriate writ had to be obtained.

    If the wrong kind of writ were used, of which there were eventually over 100 kinds, the case would be dismissed. In addition some of the rules of the common law were injurious to justice. For example before bringing a suit for an injury to a person or to property in a common law court real injury had to be sustained. The common law lacked a mechanism for preventing irreparable harms from happening.

    Since the king was believed to be the fountainhead of justice in England—that is, the person who ruled by divine right and though whom the justice of heaven flowed to the people—equity courts were established to restore fairness or equity to the legal system. People would appeal to the king for justice. In response the kings ordered the court chancellor to issue decrees of equity. Chancery courts developed to hear cases of equity and to correct the common law.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-23 17:06:00 UTC

  • ANGLO SAXON LAW (GERMANIC LAW) Anglo-Saxon law, the body of legal principles tha

    ANGLO SAXON LAW (GERMANIC LAW)

    Anglo-Saxon law, the body of legal principles that prevailed in England from the 6th century until the Norman Conquest (1066). In conjunction with Scandinavian law and the so-called barbarian laws (leges barbarorum) of continental Europe, it made up the body of law called Germanic law. Anglo-Saxon law was written in the vernacular and was relatively free of the Roman influence found in continental laws that were written in Latin. Roman influence on Anglo-Saxon law was indirect and exerted primarily through the church. There was a definite Scandinavian influence upon Anglo-Saxon law as a result of the Viking invasions of the 8th and 9th centuries. Only with the Norman Conquest did Roman law, as embodied in Frankish law, make its influence felt on the laws of England.

    Anglo-Saxon law was made up of three components: the laws and collections promulgated by the king, authoritative statements of custom such as those found in the Norman-instituted Domesday Book, and private compilations of legal rules and enactments. The primary emphasis was on criminal law rather than on private law, although certain material dealt with problems of public administration, public order, and ecclesiastical matters.

    Before the 10th century, the codes often merely presented lists of compositions—money paid to an injured party or his family—but by the 10th century a new penal system had evolved based on outlawry (declaring a criminal an outlaw), confiscation, and corporal and capital punishment. By this time there also had been an increased development of the law relating to administrative and police functions.

    The Anglo-Saxon legal system rested on the fundamental opposition between folkright and privilege. Folkright is the aggregate of rules, whether formulated or not, that can be appealed to as an expression of the juridical consciousness of the people at large or of the communities of which it is composed. It is tribal in origin and is differentiated on highly localized bases. Thus, there was a folkright of East and West Saxons, Mercians, Northumbrians, Danes, and Welshmen, and these main folkright divisions persisted even after the tribal kingdoms disappeared in the 8th and 9th centuries. The responsibility for the formulation and application of the folkright rested, in the 10th and 11th centuries, with the local shire moots (assemblies); the national council of the realm, or witan, only occasionally used folkright ideas. The older laws of real property, succession, contracts, and compositions were mainly regulated by folkright; the law had to be declared and applied by the people themselves in their communities.

    FOLKRIGHT

    Folkright could, however, be broken or modified by special enactment or grant, and the foundation of such privileges was royal power, especially once England became a single kingdom in the 10th century. In this manner a privileged land tenure was created; the rules pertaining to the succession of kinsmen were replaced by concessions of testamentary power and confirmations of grants and wills, and special privileges as to levying fines were conferred. In time, the rights originating in the royal grants of privilege came to outweigh folkright in many respects and were the starting point for the feudal system.

    Before the 10th century an individual’s actions were considered not as exertions of his own will but as acts of his kinship group. Personal protection and revenge, oaths, marriage, wardship, and succession were all regulated by the law of kinship. What began as a natural alliance later became a means of enforcing responsibility and keeping lawless individuals in order. As the associations proved insufficient, other collective bodies, such as guilds and townships, assumed these functions. In the period before the Norman Conquest, much regulation was formalized by the king’s legislation in order to protect the individual. In the area of property, for example, witnesses were required at cattle sales, not to validate the sale but as protection against later claims on the cattle. Some ordinances required the presence of witnesses for all sales outside the town gate, and others simply prohibited sales except in town, again for the buyer’s protection.

    The preservation of peace was an important feature of Anglo-Saxon law. Peace was thought of as the rule of an authority within a specific region. Because the ultimate authority was the king, there was a gradual evolution of stringent rules and regulations against violating the king’s peace.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-23 17:02:00 UTC

  • WHAT IS THE LIMIT OF PARENTAL DISCRETION? —“In the movie The Children Act, Eri

    WHAT IS THE LIMIT OF PARENTAL DISCRETION?

    —“In the movie The Children Act, Eric Danelaw, [spoiler alert: plot line follows] Jehovah’s Witness parents sought to prevent the hospital from performing a blood transfusion needed to save their child’s life. The judge read the law to say the state had a compelling interest to act in loco parentis and intercede with force to save the life of the child by ordering the blood transfusion to proceed. Children in the West are not strictly property, apparently, and yet in the question of whether the biological parents or the state has the right to make a life and death medical treatment decision for all practical intents and purposes children are property inasmuch as their fate is decided externally by others. The part I am still confused about is whether or not P would deem that most appropriately the parents rights or the states rights should take precedence in a decision to end or save the life of a child needing a blood transfusion?”— Aloha Steven

    Eric Danelaw In P-Law:

    DEFINITION

    – The problem of any conscious creature’s demand for infallibility (decidability) in the choice of action, given the continuous consumption of time, and resources in the face of ignorance and scarcity, offset by the unsubstitutable returns on cooperation.

    – The Law contains a definition of man, of reciprocity, and the terms for cooperation for man, under reciprocity, and the demand for ir-reciprocity in exchange for ir-reciprocity existential or threatened.

    – The State is merely an inventory of a collection of assets produced by demonstrated interests.

    – The Military creates a monopoly of control over the assets.

    – The Judiciary resolves disputes over assets (capital).

    – The Government, whatever its constitution, produces commons with those assets (capital).

    – The People Produce, Maintain, Defend, and Consume resources, goods services and information.

    – The People organize into groups to cooperate to multiply the returns on their efforts.

    – The Organizations of People compete to preserve the Military, State (assets), Judiciary, Government, and Organizations by producing, maintaining, and defending commons.

    – The Organizations of people produce hierarchies by pareto distributions, and rewards by nash equilibriums.

    – The Leadership of any polity consists of the balance of influences between organizations, thereby producing the ‘iron law of oligarchy’.

    – These organizations will specialize in the three possible means of human coercion i) force defense, ii) bribery trade, iii) advocating undermining, and combinations thereof.

    – The Oligarchy will most often produce its own figurehead (general, judge, leader, priest).

    – Optimum Oligarchy and Leadership is Genetic (family, clan, tribe, nation, race) that we call aristocracy: Rule of law by a Professional Judiciary, Monarchy(judge of last resort, military), Nobility (governance, commons), Priesthood (education, family), with Commerce continually rotating with demand, and consumer credit provided at no interests by the state treasury, limiting finance to investment in production and prohibited from rent seeking.

    – At the expense of limiting reproduction of to those who contribute to commons rather than consume them.

    DECISION

    Answering the question: the difference in matters of parenting between:

    1. Material and restitutable, (non-reversible, non-restitutable, physical deed)

    2. Truthful(scientific) vs lying, and reciprocal vs ir-reciprocal (Restitutable Fraudulent Word)

    3. Strategic, Normative, utilitarian, Preferential (reversible, restitutable, word and deed)

    Ergo, the parents violated 1. and 2. in a matter not open to restitution (reversal).

    The parents insure the child from the polity, and the polity from the child. Conversely the polity insures the marriage, insures the child from the parents and the polity. Otherwise the parents cannot make a property (demonstrated interest) claim on the child whatsoever, only use violence to enforce their will, assuming their possession of the child.

    The parents were advancing an un-testifiable, non-restitutable decision and claiming a (3) strategic, normative, utilitarian, preferential decision was superior to a (2) truthful and reciprocal decision.

    This is a much clearer means of judicial decidability, and a much clearer explanation of it.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-23 10:13:00 UTC

  • THE POSTMODERN PROGRAM – TRUTH DOESN’T MATTER, IT’S ALL JUST REDUCIBLE TO POWER

    THE POSTMODERN PROGRAM – TRUTH DOESN’T MATTER, IT’S ALL JUST REDUCIBLE TO POWER

    —“Talked to a physical professor today, he said … It is *semantics* to say: that energy is not always heat, and that heat flow is irreversible, and that heat is produced as a difference in temperature and flows from hot to cold. …Yep…that happened. It usually happens over internet communication. First time to my face.”— Joseph E. Postma

    —“Proof that the sickness of postmodernism has also infected the hard sciences.”—Murray O’Brien

    —“You might as well go into a church and try to explain to the congregation that there is no god. But, the POINT is, those that matter, in the congregation, do not care if there is a god or not. They know the belief in a god is what they benefit from. So, they are the ones that have to destroy you, by any means. Otherwise they lose their control over, and resulting benefit from, the rest of the believing congregation. It is simply a matter of control, NOT science, or logic, or reason.”—Derek Alker

    –“Simply a matter of power.”— Joseph E. Postma


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-22 17:34:00 UTC

  • FOR HINDUSTANIS: NO MORE NONSENSE. “YOU WAS’T KANGS.” (uncomfortable Truth Warni

    FOR HINDUSTANIS: NO MORE NONSENSE. “YOU WAS’T KANGS.”

    (uncomfortable Truth Warning)

    HISTORY OF THE IE CIVILIZATIONS:

    The European, Caucasian, Iranic, and Indian Peoples.

    Look. The IE expansion occurred in Ukraine and Russian north of the black sea out of what appears to have been a competition between proto-european and proto-iranic peoples (and not proto-turkic peoples). The southern and caucasian branch has largely been lost but mixed armenians and georgians remain. The anatolians are lost entirely. The iranic branch moved east, some continued farther east into india and disappeared into the local dravidian population, and the rest continued south into persia, and spread west again to the caucuses, leaving the iranic (some arab admixture) peoples, the indian (70/30-30/70) iranic-dravidian admixture peoples, the european peoples, and the mixed balkan peopels. That is the foundation of the european-caucasian-iranic-indian peoples.

    That group of people had bronze, horse, wheel, maneuver, entrepernurial organization, a religion they’d adapted from anatolia, but inverted from submissive to heoric, and similar but varied religions that rapidly adapted to each environment. The european remained aristocratic egalitarian, most likely because they conquered near relations, completely conquered them, and retained empirical property-law and the aristocratic peerage. the iranics moved into more developed areas of the indus, persian gulf, and finally Mesopotamian, and adopted religiously dominant hierarchical law so that they could govern conquered peoples. The iranics that conquered and entered india used a hierarchical formal class religion to govern the dravidic peoples – we don’t know why but it appears because indus peoples were more advanced and they needed some means of narration.

    All of us were ‘stuck’ with that original decision of ‘how to govern ourselves and the people we conquered’. However, we were also stuck with demographics, with India and Mesopotamia having a terrible governance problem because of the ease of survival of the underclasses, but the benefit of trade routes that could be taxes for profit and the financing of wars. But that original decision of how to ‘think about, talk about, argue about how we organize’ is the primary cause of the difference in our achievements.

    India seems to have developed very rational law and scholarship at one point, but stagnated and like medieval Europe, never evolved a central state strong enough to resist invaders – all of whom were resisted by the pure scale of India not so much as any other factor. The rather obvious answer is that the loss of the Indus river (hrappans) was catastrophic, the demographics unalterable, that a majority middle class could not evolve (and still is struggling).

    Persia is a well understood story and had not the byzantines and Sassanids exhausted each other Persia would have built an Iranic civilization as India has an Indian, and insulated the rest of the world from the curse (cancer) of islam and it’s systemic destruction of every genetic, institutional, cultural, and intellectual form of capital by expansion of its underclasses. Everyone fought over taxation of the trade routes of the middle east until the age of sail circumvented those trade routes making them irrelevant and eliminating the ability fund soldiers, fund technological investment, build technology, because they lacked the demographics to do it (as china is showing India at the moment).

    Europe lacked both the warm climate, the flood river valleys, and the trade routes, so while europeans could consume more calories, it had to endure winters, and it was impossible to centralize enough capital to create institutions – until they moved south to conquer the mediterraneans and develop Mediterranean trade. But they were not conquering vast hordes of established peoples. The bronze age collapse had made the Mediterranean vulnerable to european conquest just as the greco-roman collapse and byzantine-Sassanid war made the great civilizations of the ancient world vulnerable to Arab conquest.

    The difference is that european civilization was not absorbed into locals as were the Indians and the Caucasians, and somewhat the Persians, so they retained the institutions of the peerage, tripartism, customary law of tort, the jury of peers, and an military-empirical rather than supernatural -moral system of rule, that could more rapidly adopt to the development of a middle class. In otter words, no matter how wealthy, the wealthy were largely middle class (commercial).

    It was this legal system that made europeans work with competition, reason, argument, evidence, geometry, and philosophy rather than hierarchy or equality, moralizing, sophism or supernaturalism, and astrology.

    So the better question is ‘what did India and china, in their relative isolation do over thousands of years; vs what did Persia do in thousands of years, vs what did Assyria do in their thousands of years, vs what did europeans do in a few hundred years of conquering Europe, a few hundred years in the mediterranean, and a few hundred years after escaping the semitic (jewish, christian, islamic) dark ages?

    We all invent, trade, and spread technology. The question is ‘what do we do with it’, and how rapidly and what was the consequence?

    Europeans dragged humanity – kicking and screaming all the while – out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, disease, suffering, child mortality, and early death by utilizing every bit of information to competitively adapt as fast as humanly possible in the IE expansion, in the Ancient World, and in the Modern World.

    What did the jews, the most literate people in Europe, do? What arts, what architecture, what achievements, what science, or technology, what medicine, what philosophy? None.

    What did islam achieve for having destroyed five great civilizations of the ancient world, and institutionalizing superstition, ignorance, illiteracy, obedience, the art of lying by abrahamic means.

    What did india achieve other than numbering and damascene (carbon) steel? What did india inherit from the first institutional civilization the Sumerians? I mean, trade is what makes the technology of measurement, recording, contracts and accounting necessary. Why did indians take the abacus and convert it to symbols where others simply retained the abacus and summary numbers? Why did the middle east focus on religion, india culture, west on law, and far east on bureaucracy?

    We all tried different things. But indians are desperately trying to blame someone other than the rate of the reproduction of the underclasses for their condition. It is not possible to fix indian demographics, society, or government, without eradication of islam, the conversion from myth to history, and most of all a one child policy for those unable to master the tertiary systems of calculation we call mathematics.

    And there is no other cause.

    And this ridiculous belief that you weren’t conquered by pretty much every group that came by, as if they are evil and you are culturally and institutionally incompetent, is something you need to get over. You’re almost isolated on a continent, and like the european or Chinese should have competed on the world stage, yet you haven’t built a wall like china, or a navy like europa, and haven’t prosecuted hostiles among you systematically conquering your people and reducing them to barbarism. The only person to blame for your culture’s condition is the man in the mirror. Because if you can’t compete, then you simply can’t compete, and nature does not tolerate those who she suffers but who do not evolve.

    The Red Queen Never Rests.

    You’re welcome for the education.

    I don’t make errors – ever.

    Don’t waste the fact that I invested my time in you.

    Learn something.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-22 16:43:00 UTC

  • WHAT ‘TRADITIONAL’ MEANS, WHAT TO SAY INSTEAD, AND HOW TO RESTORE RECIPROCITY BE

    WHAT ‘TRADITIONAL’ MEANS, WHAT TO SAY INSTEAD, AND HOW TO RESTORE RECIPROCITY BETWEEN GENDERS.

    Advice to Libertarian(ideology), Constitutional (rule of law), Right(normative tradition), and Religious(theological tradition): Avoid “Traditional” as it’s indefensible. (FWIW; it means ’empirically successful in pre technological history because of the division of labor necessary under intergenerational agrarianism.’)

    Better argument is “Biological gender roles constitute the optimum Nash equilibrium under which all of us do the best we can even if none of us or few of us do as well as we’d wish, without imposing irreciprocal hardship upon one another.”

    This is why we evolved paring off and serial monogamy, and only developed long term monogamy as (a) we lived longer (b) we developed property and productivity and (c) were able to perform intergenerational care in exchange for intergenerational inheritance.

    Because of the narrower distribution of desirable men, and the wider distribution of desirable women and the increase in the division of labor such that women are freed from manual household labor like men are (largely)freed from manual environmental labor, we can no longer expect postwar rates of marriage, and will return to pre-industrial rates of marriage – preserving it more commonly among the better classes who have greater interests in property and its returns, and the working and laboring classes who possess sufficient in-class sexual social market value, and sufficient conscientiousness and reciprocity, and returning to serial or parallel relations around maternal households living on the edge of self sufficiency.

    However, we can eliminate ir-reciprocity for MEN in the current era, by (a) ending marriage to the state (redistribution); (b) ending community property, alimony, child support, (c) restore liability for interference in a marriage; (e) restore voluntary disassociation so that men can reform paternal institutions of reciprocal support in lieu of marriage; and (d) forcible savings for retirement that is unattachable by anyone and everyone as insurance by and for the polity from your moral hazard of self insufficiency.

    In other words, we can restore reciprocal interest in the returns on investment in a partnership, by restoring the disincentive to parasitically live off others permitted by their intuition of reciprocity against moral hazard.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-22 13:10:00 UTC