AN BRIEF EXPLANATION OF THE INTELLECTUAL HISTORY OF THE 19TH AND 20TH CENTURIES UNTIL PRESENT I consider each wave of conservatism (somewhere between around one generation (25) years between iterations to have been a failure. Starting with the war interrupting Poincare, Maxwell, Darwin, Menger, Spencer, Nietzche, and the Romanticists and the second german scientific enlightenment, continuing with the failure of Mises, Hayek, Popper, Brouwer, Bridgman, and all their peers. (failing with science), moving to literature in the next generation (Kirk and contemporaries), moving to intellectual research in the late 70’s (the investment in the think tanks), to the conservative shift in the sciences due to the development of computers, magnetic imaging systems, and research in genetics, and the economic and historical evidence of a century of modernity in the late 1990’s. So my perspective is that we are now in the hard science era picking up where the war disrupted the center of the completion of the enlightenment in Germany, and as a consequence throughout europe, and less so in america, where Poincare,Brouwer/Bridgman failed, (maxwell succeeded), Darwin failed to extend into social science and politics, Spencer failed to explain operationalism in social science, Hayek only partially succeeded in Cognition, Economics, Politics, and Law, and Popper only partially succeeded wth Critical rationalism (philosophy of science). We are now completing (without understanding what we are doing) the 19th century (lost) german second half of the enlightenment (social science). But this is why we must read and understand: 1 – Marx (jewish), 2 – Durant (french catholic) 3 – Toynbee (Anglo Tory), and 4 – Spengler(German ‘lutheran’), and Hobbes (‘aryan’), Just as we must understand: 1 – marx/freud/boaz(jewish athoritarian pseudoscience), 2 – rousseu(catholic utopian moral literatue), 3 – kant(german duty and rationalism), 4 – locke/smith/hume/jefferson(english utopian empiricism). To understand the different enlightenment strategies. Everyone writes in their group evolutionary strategy under the assumption that it is ‘good’. But the only testable good independent of context (group evolutionary strategy) is ‘reciprocity’ (natural law). Of those historians, and philosophers, who provides us with the closest approximation of natural law? And what is the consequence if everyone practices natural law, but constructs the myth, institutions, law, norms, and commons most suitable to their people in truthful (scientific reciprocity) terms? Criticisms of the past motivations are available for every single group that evolved under literacy (the enlightenment). The question is, regardless of intentions, regardless of motivations, regardless of previous actions, what actions must we take today to create a future where the benefits of knowledge and understanding can continue to persist,and expand? Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
Form: Mini Essay
-
An Brief Explanation of the Intellectual History of the 19th and 20th Centuries through the Present
AN BRIEF EXPLANATION OF THE INTELLECTUAL HISTORY OF THE 19TH AND 20TH CENTURIES UNTIL PRESENT I consider each wave of conservatism (somewhere between around one generation (25) years between iterations to have been a failure. Starting with the war interrupting Poincare, Maxwell, Darwin, Menger, Spencer, Nietzche, and the Romanticists and the second german scientific enlightenment, continuing with the failure of Mises, Hayek, Popper, Brouwer, Bridgman, and all their peers. (failing with science), moving to literature in the next generation (Kirk and contemporaries), moving to intellectual research in the late 70’s (the investment in the think tanks), to the conservative shift in the sciences due to the development of computers, magnetic imaging systems, and research in genetics, and the economic and historical evidence of a century of modernity in the late 1990’s. So my perspective is that we are now in the hard science era picking up where the war disrupted the center of the completion of the enlightenment in Germany, and as a consequence throughout europe, and less so in america, where Poincare,Brouwer/Bridgman failed, (maxwell succeeded), Darwin failed to extend into social science and politics, Spencer failed to explain operationalism in social science, Hayek only partially succeeded in Cognition, Economics, Politics, and Law, and Popper only partially succeeded wth Critical rationalism (philosophy of science). We are now completing (without understanding what we are doing) the 19th century (lost) german second half of the enlightenment (social science). But this is why we must read and understand: 1 – Marx (jewish), 2 – Durant (french catholic) 3 – Toynbee (Anglo Tory), and 4 – Spengler(German ‘lutheran’), and Hobbes (‘aryan’), Just as we must understand: 1 – marx/freud/boaz(jewish athoritarian pseudoscience), 2 – rousseu(catholic utopian moral literatue), 3 – kant(german duty and rationalism), 4 – locke/smith/hume/jefferson(english utopian empiricism). To understand the different enlightenment strategies. Everyone writes in their group evolutionary strategy under the assumption that it is ‘good’. But the only testable good independent of context (group evolutionary strategy) is ‘reciprocity’ (natural law). Of those historians, and philosophers, who provides us with the closest approximation of natural law? And what is the consequence if everyone practices natural law, but constructs the myth, institutions, law, norms, and commons most suitable to their people in truthful (scientific reciprocity) terms? Criticisms of the past motivations are available for every single group that evolved under literacy (the enlightenment). The question is, regardless of intentions, regardless of motivations, regardless of previous actions, what actions must we take today to create a future where the benefits of knowledge and understanding can continue to persist,and expand? Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
SCALIA, AND NATURAL LAW (important) ANTIQUATED LANGUAGE DOES NOT MEAN SUBJECTIVE
http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/3/20/14976926/gorsuch-natural-law-supreme-court-hearingsGORSUCH, SCALIA, AND NATURAL LAW
(important)
ANTIQUATED LANGUAGE DOES NOT MEAN SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT.
This is a more than somewhat amateurish analysis of the difference between judging a case by the law without interpretation (addition or subtraction of information) of that law (Scalia – Originalism), and judgement of the law as written as to whether it adheres to natural law (Gorsuch – Natural Law), and suggesting that natural law is intuitive, rather than that subset of the Law of Nature, we call Cooperation, which is axiomatically testable by tests of reciprocity.
Ergo, when Gorsuch suggests that we must apply tests of morality, it is whether the causal density (set of impositions of costs, and provisions of returns) assumed by the law as written are in fact ‘balanced’ – meaning no involuntary costs have been imposed.
It has nothing to do with intuition, so much as subjectively testing the rationality of each of those inputs and outputs as to whether or not they consist of productive, fully informed, warrantied voluntary exchanges free of imposition of costs upon others by externality. Jurists, lawyers, and juries use the test of the ‘reasonable man’ to judge the rationality of actions given the incentives – in light of the natural asymmetry of information individuals possess becasue of age, ability, and experience.
The fact that the law uses archaic language of moral philosophy just as mathematicians use the archaic language of mathematical platonism (fictionalism), and that such, analytic statements as I am making to replace those archaic statements with scientific (existential) terminology, is merely one of linguistic habit within the discipline, but not operational application in juridical decision making.
In other words, both Gorsuch and Scalia are stating that they observe the scientific method in their judgement of the law as written by its adherence to perfect reciprocity, the case as argued adheres to the law as written.
And that is precisely what Rule Of Law under Natural Law, and a Constitution of Natural Law demand of judges. Judges merely umpire. If you want new rules, go to the government, make new rules, have them survive a test in the market for approval by the states (houses), and survive tests of natural law by the courts.
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law
The Propertarian Institute,
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-23 13:38:00 UTC
-
TRUMP’S STRATEGY: (second version) “Negotiate with corrupt, immoral, dishonest,
TRUMP’S STRATEGY:
(second version)
“Negotiate with corrupt, immoral, dishonest, unsophisticated, incompetent, competitors, ‘frenemies’, and hostile parties, from a position of demand for moral transparency, while evidencing mistrust and maintaining walk away power, causing your opponents to creatively negotiate, and provide and commit to details, while on the defensive – causing those opponents to pay the cost and liability of educating everyone else involved, leaving you free of having made commitments – the judgement, intention, and morality, of which can be questioned.”
“Say what the base, soldiers, workers, employees think, and cause the state bureaucracy, media, public intellectuals, and academy, to justify its position thereby educating the people.”
He has been practicing this strategy with the media and they do his bidding. It is how he obtained free press. It is how they are under his control today. In this way he talks to his base, who understands exactly what he is doing, and avoids putting the opponents in control of the discourse.
As long as his base will repeat what he says the opposition will remain on the defensive.
He used this strategy throughout his career. He did it through the campaign. He did it prior to taking office. And he has continued to do it since taking office.
GOALS – THE STRATEGY OF SIMPLE MAN TAKING THE MORAL HIGH GROUND
1 – Propose a deal that is either big opportunity or big threat (or both). (bait/greed or threat/fear)
2 – Position your decision criteria as the ‘moral man’ that wants everyone to be happy, and do the right thing in the long term.
3 – Propose extreme strategy, tactics, and solutions uncompromisingly to move people to the center.
4 – Never give away any information or your acceptable compromise position. This just weakens your negotiating influence.
5 – Force the other side to come to your table with ideas if they want to participate or defend themselves.
6 – Play the last most unreasonable man: dumb, irrational, paranoid, angry, while holding to a moral high ground narrative. This means that they have to constantly educate you.
7 – Listen to the parties, your employees, and sponsors, for ‘things to mistrust’. Use this information to either question or attack the motives, intentions, or character of opposition parties. This keeps them on the defensive, proposing new ideas. Maintain the moral high ground.
8 – Speak in the voice of your investors, employees, followers, customers, or whomever is necessary so that they feel you are working in their interest. Use Hyperbole to illustrate to your base that you hear them. This creates trust, and weakens the other parties ability to create consensus and forces them to spend energy on defense.
9 – Find proposed solutions that are unacceptable by inflexible parties and promote those antagonistic ideas in order to force them to change their positions by choosing a lesser of two evils.
10 – Always act decisively and immediately when you find an opportunity to move forward one single step at a time. Incrementally accumulate information, commitments, contracts, and influence.
11 – Exhaust your opponent’s tactics, ideas, and will to try to plan or to outwit you.
12 – This strategy makes narratives, plans, and alliances against you very difficult, reduces your costs of inquiry, puts you in control by creating chaos, keeps opponents off balance, and results in you gathering exceptionally good information by evidence – rather than words. Make incremental progress toward big wins until the investment is such that people are trapped and cannot back out.
13 – If people took advantage of you and others during the process, ensure that they lose all gains later in the process. Explain that it was their greed or folly, or character, caused it.
14 – Failure is always your opponents fault. Just stay on moral message the entire time.
NEGOTIATION AS PROXY WARFARE
Imagine (you probably can’t) what it is like to negotiate with Yassir Arafat, any given president of Iran, any given member of the Russia duma, or any given Chinese Party official. In these countries DECEPTION is not only an art, but it is HONORABLE. In the case of Russians, telling the truth that exposes a vulnerability or gives away information is considered stupid. In the case of Chinese it is simply good manners to lie in most circumstances. In the case of Iran(and much of the arab world), the difference between suggestion, wishful thinking, faith, an outright lying is non-existent. And skilled lying is not only something to be proud of but religiously sanctioned.
Trump uses very well understood negotiating techniques. They have names. People teach them. You can hire people to use them for you. Most of us cannot grasp the art of negotiation with enemies, competitors, and ‘frenemies’. (Foreign Governments, Domestic Politicians, Bureaucrats, Unions, Financiers, Construction, Garbage Disposal, Maintenance, Housekeeping, and Utility companies.) Imagine what it is to negotiate with rooms full of lawyers trying to seek advantage through contractual nuance (deceit).
Trump has vast experience with ‘the unskilled laboring classes’, ‘the semi-skilled working classes’, and the ‘the skilled classes’, the ‘managerial classes’, the ‘professional classes’, and the ‘bureaucratic classes.’ He has build his career negotiating with people in an industry (construction) where corruption is rife at political, government, union, and contractor level, and where profits and losses are often determined in by the resolution of conflicts over prices and responsibility in courts – and where everyone is trying to get a dime out of everyone else.
You might consider this ‘crafty’ but it is just ‘the craft of negotiating’, that anyone learns when negotiating under threat of legal, financial, or military consequences with many parties, in competitive if not hostile environments, with sometimes single digit profits, but large numbers to work with.
WHITE COLLAR BLINDNESS (The curse of the educated but lacking experience with responsibility for objectively testable outcomes.)
People who advocate, politic, and criticize for a living rarely if ever have had any responsibility for anything other than themselves. Those who manage soldiers; those who manage the incomes of many families, tens, hundreds or thousands; those who manage the money of investors; those who manage the political demands of millions; all have responsibility – because they can fail, with dire consequences. Unfortunately, politicians, public intellectuals, media, and the academy can’t really fail because – while we could – we don’t measure them the way we measure war, economy, business, industry, and finance.
When you compete in business you fight, and when you fight in business in ‘the trades’ you’re dealing with very small margins, and very ‘creative’ means of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and outright deceit.
Trump’s strategy creates a funnel through which deceit, manipulation, pretense, ignorance, incompetence are filtered by the negotiating community and its clients. Instead of layers of political lies and compromises and positioning, it creates material outcomes regardless of those attempts at politicking, fraud and deceit.
His strategy is to reverse the roles of cat and mouse, and to put the competitors on the defensive by forcing them to testify to the public, thereby exposing the pretenses that politicians, intellectuals, bureaucrats, operate under.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-23 10:30:00 UTC
-
TRUMP’S STRATEGY: NEGOTIATE FROM A POSITION OF MISTRUST, AND MAINTAIN WALK AWAY
TRUMP’S STRATEGY: NEGOTIATE FROM A POSITION OF MISTRUST, AND MAINTAIN WALK AWAY POWER., CAUSING YOUR OPPONENTS TO CREATIVELY NEGOTIATE ON THE DEFENSE.
He uses this strategy all the time. He did it throughout his career. He did it through the campaign. He did it prior to taking office. And he has continued to do it since taking office.
1) ACT STUPID (OR PARANOID): “Say what the base thinks, and cause the state bureaucracy, media, public intellectuals, and academy, to justify its position thereby educating the people.”
He has been doing this to the media and they do his bidding. It is how he obtained free press. It is how they are under his control today.
In this way he talks to his base, who understands exactly what he is doing, and avoids putting the opponents in control of the discourse.
As long as his base will repeat what he says the opposition will remain on the defensive.
I think most people forget that he wrote a book on the art of the deal. Trump forgot more about negotiation in the past hour than most people on earth will ever know.
I’m not the only person who has been putting this explanation forward – dozens of others have. It’s obvious. It’s just not obvious to the solipsistic left. People who speak in emotion today not consequence in the future.
2) USE HYPERBOLE (The Kantian Categorical Imperative):
One of the other techniques he makes use of is that conservatives speak in hyperbole in order to accentuate the conservative intuition to treat all moral statements under the Kantian Categorical Imperative.
What is it? Conservatives always ask themselves, subconsciously: “What if everyone did that, or what would be the consequences of a lot of this happening?” (The intuition of the conservative time preference).
3) ACT DECISIVELY ACCORDING WHAT THEY EXPECT: ACTING STUPID.
This technique results in forcing all other parties to use creative means of preventing that EXTREME (which you never intend), and will come to the table with either an admission of failure so that you can move on.
In other words, it is a means of exporting cost and blame by forcing others to do work defensively. This produces the least posturing, less deceitful, most detailed explanatory responses by others, and it leaves responsibility for failure at their feet. Your hands are clean.
4) SIEZE OPPORTUNITY FOR SUCCESS, WHILE DEMONSTRATING HOW DISHONEST AND MANIPULATIVE AND UNTRUSTWORTHY YOUR OPPONENTS ARE.
Now from personal experience, this requires some acting skill, but all it really requires is ‘keeping your finger on the pulse of your workers’ and using whatever concerns they have (which are far more paranoid and creative than you can ever imagine being) against your opponents’.
Trump is a MASTER OF THE DEAL. Not of testimony, not of fully informed, consent, but of negotiation and the deal.
Basically, force people to make you happy, but never admit to being satisfied. Then anyone who was at all honest and helpful, heap praise upon, and make sure gets access to future opportunities.
THE IGNORANCE OF THE TALKING HEAD CLASS
People who babble, advocate, politic, and criticize for a living rarely if EVER have had any responsibility for anything other than themselves. Those who manage the incomes of many families, tens, hundreds or thousands; those who manage the money of investors; those who manage the political demands of millions; all have responsibility as long as they can fail. Unfortunately, politicians can’t really fail because – while we could – we don’t measure them the way we measure business, industry, and finance.
When you fight in business you fight, and when you fight in business in ‘the trades’ you’re dealing with very small margins, and very ‘creative’ means of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and outright deceit.
NEGOTIATION AS PROXY WARFARE
Imagine (you probably can’t) what it is like to negotiate with Yassir Arafat, any given president of Iran, any given member of the Russia duma, or any given Chinese official. In these countries DECEPTION is not only an art, but it is HONORABLE. In the case of Chinese it is simply good manners to lie in most circumstances.
Trump uses very well understood negotiating techniques. They have names. People teach them. You can hire people to use them for you. Most of us cannot grasp the art of negotiation with enemies, competitors, and frenemies. (Foreign Governments, Domestic Politicians, Bureaucrats, Unions, Financiers, Construction, Garbage Disposal, Maintenance, Housekeeping, and Utility companies.)
Imagine what it is to negotiate with rooms full of lawyers trying to seek advantage through contractual nuance (deceit). (You wouldn’t believe what I have heard from the top firms in the USA like Wilson Sonsini – ‘Here is how to screw your common shareholders….’, and “here is how we’re going to help the other side screw you”. Or what I have heard from the Clinton Foundation (which I won’t repeat here).
(Conversely, FWIW, the CIA (er…State Department) never lied to me … ever. They only say “I can’t discuss those topics.) And my (limited) experience in the Justice Department was that everyone is lying all the time, and at every opportunity, and doing as little as possible, taking as much vacation time, and politicking for another position. Conversely the Postal Inspectors were about as straight up and honest as you can get.)
Trump has vast experience with ‘the unskilled laboring classes’, ‘the semi-skilled working classes’, and the ‘the skilled classes’, the ‘managerial classes’, the ‘professional classes’, and the bureaucratic classes. He has build his career negotiating with people in an industry (construction) where corruption is rife at political, government, union, and contract or level, and where profits and losses are often determined in by the resolution of conflicts over prices and responsibility in courts, and where everyone is greedy and trying to get a dime out of everyone else.
Unfortunately, college educated yet ignorant and questionably intelligent america, and the ‘talkers’ generally lack any responsibility for people, money, and tangible results of any scale, and have lost all cognition of what it’s like to do this kind of ‘real work’. The kind of work his BASE does every single day.
HE’S DOING WHAT THE WORKING AND PRODUCING PUBLIC WANT, AND WHAT CONSERVATIVE INTELLECTUALS (LIKE ME) WANT.
As someone who has spent a few decades now working on performative truth (and what we refer to as the scientific method), I think many of us in the population are desirous of putting the shoe on the other public intellectuals foot so to speak, and therefore changing the strategy to where we actively interrogate the state, academy, and media. If for no other reason than the misuse of statistics, and the misrepresentation of nearly all ‘research’ in anthropology, economics, the social sciences, and psychology.
Even within that discipline of economics, I find it trivially easy to demonstrate that almost every measure we can find constitutes cherrypicking and does not fully account for the changes in various forms of capital, and the cost of doing so. Isn’t economics of growth de-facto cherrypicking?
Anyway. On behalf of the public I prefer that politicians prosecute the academy state and media. Because those of us out here in the fields (tiny think tanks included) are clearly not able to do so in sufficient numbers.
Cheers.
( Note: I made a living by buying, reforming, consolidating, and selling companies. I have used this strategy for decades at admittedly smaller scales. And I have a more ‘ruthless’ reputation than Trump does – at my infinitely smaller scale of operations. )
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-22 14:59:00 UTC
-
AN BRIEF EXPLANATION OF THE INTELLECTUAL HISTORY OF THE 19TH AND 20TH CENTURIES
AN BRIEF EXPLANATION OF THE INTELLECTUAL HISTORY OF THE 19TH AND 20TH CENTURIES UNTIL PRESENT
I consider each wave of conservatism (somewhere between around one generation (25) years between iterations to have been a failure.
Starting with the war interrupting Poincare, Maxwell, Darwin, Menger, Spencer, Nietzche, and the Romanticists and the second german scientific enlightenment, continuing with the failure of Mises, Hayek, Popper, Brouwer, Bridgman, and all their peers. (failing with science), moving to literature in the next generation (Kirk and contemporaries), moving to intellectual research in the late 70’s (the investment in the think tanks), to the conservative shift in the sciences due to the development of computers, magnetic imaging systems, and research in genetics, and the economic and historical evidence of a century of modernity in the late 1990’s.
So my perspective is that we are now in the hard science era picking up where the war disrupted the center of the completion of the enlightenment in Germany, and as a consequence throughout europe, and less so in america, where Poincare,Brouwer/Bridgman failed, (maxwell succeeded), Darwin failed to extend into social science and politics, Spencer failed to explain operationalism in social science, Hayek only partially succeeded in Cognition, Economics, Politics, and Law, and Popper only partially succeeded wth Critical rationalism (philosophy of science).
We are now completing (without understanding what we are doing) the 19th century (lost) german second half of the enlightenment (social science).
But this is why we must read and understand:
1 – Marx (jewish),
2 – Durant (french catholic)
3 – Toynbee (Anglo Tory), and
4 – Spengler(German ‘lutheran’), and Hobbes (‘aryan’),
Just as we must understand:
1 – marx/freud/boaz(jewish athoritarian pseudoscience),
2 – rousseu(catholic utopian moral literatue),
3 – kant(german duty and rationalism),
4 – locke/smith/hume/jefferson(english utopian empiricism).
To understand the different enlightenment strategies.
Everyone writes in their group evolutionary strategy under the assumption that it is ‘good’. But the only testable good independent of context (group evolutionary strategy) is ‘reciprocity’ (natural law).
Of those historians, and philosophers, who provides us with the closest approximation of natural law?
And what is the consequence if everyone practices natural law, but constructs the myth, institutions, law, norms, and commons most suitable to their people in truthful (scientific reciprocity) terms?
Criticisms of the past motivations are available for every single group that evolved under literacy (the enlightenment).
The question is, regardless of intentions, regardless of motivations, regardless of previous actions, what actions must we take today to create a future where the benefits of knowledge and understanding can continue to persist,and expand?
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-22 14:12:00 UTC
-
ON BEING “ASSHOLES AND HEROES” I am extremely talented at being an ass—- which
ON BEING “ASSHOLES AND HEROES”
I am extremely talented at being an ass—- which is why I try to avoid all opportunity to exercise that talent.
I am extremely talented at being a ruthless ass—-, which is why I try to avoid all opportunity to exercise that talent.
I am extremely talented in the use of cunning violence while being a ruthless ass—-, which is why I try to avoid all opportunity to exercise that talent.
I have worked very hard to be a little scribbling hamster despite the brutality of my upbringing ( which was horrific by any account. )
In general, most of the problems you can solve by being an ass—-, a ruthless ass—-, and a cunningly violent ruthless ass—-, are not actually problems; but opportunities to let nature take its course while you drink coffee and watch the train wreck.
Personally I love being a hamster. I would rather watch and appreciate people, adore beautiful women, and savor the arts of words, craft, and creativity.
That said, there are good uses for being an ass—, ruthless ass—-, and cunningly violent ruthless ass—. We call that war.
But, the moral man need not be an ass, or ruthless, or cunning. He merely need speak the truth, demand it in return, and brook no imposition upon himself or others, and preform restitution to the best of his ability when he errs.
And to use cunning and violence without being an ass—, but a hero.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-21 15:00:00 UTC
-
El problema del liberalismo
El liberalismo no reconoce de forma exacta el origen y el significado de los bienes. Los (((liberales))) son capaces de aceptar a los humanos pero no a sus distintas razas, por ello no pueden distinguir entre un bárbaro y un ejecutivo porque creen que nacer de un vientre te hace igual. Los (((liberales))) son incapaces de tomar en cuenta las ramificaciones de lo que implica una confederación entre tribus que tienen en común una piscina genética, una historia, un pasado y una identidad. Toda vez que aceptan esas premisas en cierta (((tribu))) en particular y se alían con ella para luchar con uñas y dientes. Los liberales permiten a cierta (((tribu))) formar relaciones de manera espontánea entre ellos, formar familias entre ellos, organizar comunidades a lo interno y sellarlas del resto de la sociedad, con costumbres y formas de las que están orgullosos y valoran, toda vez que a otros demográficos más numerosos que ellos son privados de ese privilegio porque se usa un tótem ideológico creado posterior a 1945 en Europa central y del Este. Los liberales no aceptan que la sociedad es dueña de si misma. Para obtener los beneficios de la cooperación pacífica y económica así como una pacífica coexistencia entre tribus, debemos crear una aceptación social y confiar en los derechos de propiedad. Las sociedades abiertas y cooperantes surgen de este tipo de inversiones comunes unas a otras toda vez que respetan la diversidad real de cada grupo sin la creación de una ensalada multicultural. Los libertarios se ven a si mismos como autorizados por la providencia a obtener estas condiciones de coexistencia pacífica de la cual podría emerger la cooperación económica voluntaria, pero estas cosas tienen un precios y se rehúsan a pagar la cuota que buscan ganar de las propiedades en común por medio del robo (((parasitario))).
Solo mirad lo que los hombres occidentales creamos
Fuimos capaces de desarrollar mercados por medio del ejercicio de las leyes naturales.Con ese cuerpo de leyes se le permitió a hombres que son soberanos débiles e incapaces de defender y ejercer su soberanía el poder participar en un mercado de bienes y servicios con la condición de que limitaran sus transacciones a ser productivas, garantizadas en su totalidad, recíprocas y que no trajeran consecuencias negativas a las partes involucradas en el intercambio y a terceros. Los que creemos en el propietarismo y en decir la verdad llamamos a ese concepto LIBERTAD. Y la libertad es posible si se construyen los bienes y servicios que llamamos el “Imperio de la Ley”, el cual pagamos a soberanos federales como militares, jueces, policías y en una última instancia a nuestros Reyes.
Los (((liberales))) son sólo marxistas de propiedades en común.
Mientras haya mercado para el Estado, el Estado existirá
Estos (((personajes))) se equivocan a cada rato, a propósito y siempre con el mismo error en mayores o menores grados. Los liberales anárquicos buscan la abolición del estado (al igual que los comunistas), esas ideas proceden de un mismo tronco de un árbol con ciertas (((raíces))), si se desea eliminar al estado, se debe eliminar el mercado para que el mercado exista. Y desear que esto suceda es meramente una puerilidad propia de adolescentes encerrados en las casas de sus padres con mucho internet y demasiada acceso a pornografía literaria y audiovisual. El poder judicial occidental como lo entendemos ha tenido la capacidad de evolucionar en todos los rincones de Occidente y ha logrado suprimir los espirales sin fin de retaliación, venganza y barbarie entre individuos, tribus, familias, clanes al estandarizar los castigos y prohibir futuros espirales de violencia. La universalidad de este hecho histórico contradice todo dogma (((libertario))) sobre la naturaleza de los hombres, el estado del hombre y el proceso de la resolución de conflictos. Si se desea eliminar el mercado para que el Estado exista, se debe eliminar la demanda para la agresión y se debe eliminar la demanda para la venganza. Esto quiere decir suprimir la oportunidad de que un hombre sea violento para con su semejante y que se provean medios para la resolución de disputas que aseguren en contra de un espiral de violencia y agresión vengativa sin fin. La mayoría de las personas nunca están contentas con los fallos y dictámenes de las diversas cortes y tribunales, y les da miedo la capacidad de castigo de los jueces.
Cuando sea que hayamos usado aseguradores (jueces) que compitan entre si, no estamos en presencia de un sistema de justicia sino que hemos degenerado nuestro sistema judicial en aseguradores con conflictos personales y no guiados por la ley.
Los jueces que tienen conflictos entre tribus judiciales son más peligrosos que delincuentes individuales, rencillas familiares y conflictos tribales porque buscan lucrarse de ese tipo de actividades. Las organizaciones buscan dominar, (crear monopolios) y de allí es que todos los Estados se originan sin importar su tamaño: Son entes que aseguran la existencia de monopolios en última instancia para frenar a otros estados. Esta es la narrativa histórica que contrarresta el dogma propiedad privada-vs-marxismo y el dogma propiedad comunal-vs-marxismo (((liberalismo))). Esto es una verdad que incomoda. Lo sé.
Los libertarios sólo crean teoría crítica a lo Francfort
Los (((libertarios))) opinan mucho sobre lo que constituye la agresión, pero han pasado décadas y todos ellos han fracasado estrepitosamente al intentar definir eso. Pareciera que nunca pueden discernir que no es el actor quien determina sino la víctima quien sentirá su patrimonio e integridad vulnerada y buscara defenderse y por ello determinar cual es el enfoque y definición de lo que considera le pertenece. Y es la comunidad de aseguradores (el ente político y estatal) los que previenen los conflictos. Y el estado actúa como un asegurador monopólico que previene conflictos entre partes. Ciertamente el estado puede extralimitarse e ir más allá de sus competencias regulatorias en forma de leyes, en su poder de poder recaudar tributos, y en su búsqueda arbitraria de poder en vez de actuar como un asegurador monopólico. Los problemas del estado se originan en discreción y en el empleo a tiempo completo de servicios organizacionales en vez una democracia económica directa y empleos por subcontratación, (dicho de otro modo, la tercerización es buena). En lo que respecta al imperio de la ley, éste elimina la regulación arbitraria. La democracia directa elimina la tributación arbitraria. Los subcontratistas proveen servicios de forma más eficaz que los burócratas. El poder judicial puede ser independinete y autónomo. Asi funcionan las monarquías y les va bien. Y así funcionan los ejércitos y cumplen su propósito. Las monarquías antiguas manejaban de forma muy eficaz sus bienes y servicios. No existen modelos superiores al imperio de la ley natural. Las monarquías hereditarias tenían a jueces independientes, una cámara del senado y de diputados que legislaban tomando en cuenta que la Ley Natural es la más justa y de ese tipo de gobiernos surgían mercados que producían y ofertaban bienes y servicios con los cuales los hombres podían comerciar intercambiando valor por valor. Esto es la democracia económica directa, que da poder a los hombres y los ayuda a contribuir con los tributos al elegir cómo quieren que sus impuestos sean invertidos por el estado. La otra manera de ver las cosas es con los lentes del (((Liberalismo))) o lo que es lo mismo, el separatismo de la diáspora judía, otra producto del marxismo y la historia marxista. Y no hace otra cosa sino la corrupción moral de la sociedad y otorgar licencia a la inmoralidad toda vez que prohíbe todo tipo de violencia retaliatoria hacia esa conducta inmoral.
Al final, quienes terminan defendiendo la libertad son hombres en uniformes – Julius Evola.
Sólo existe una fuente de libertad: Un ejército armado, un poder judicial independiente, un monarca como juez de última instancia. y la ley natural, que es común a todos los hombres, descubierta por los juristas en forma de ley. Esa es la religión sagrada política de los hombres. Alberto Zambrano Para el Instituto Propietarista **Nota: En este escrito uso de forma intercambiable liberal, y libertario porque esencialmente son corrientes afines y sinónimas.
-
El problema del liberalismo
El liberalismo no reconoce de forma exacta el origen y el significado de los bienes. Los (((liberales))) son capaces de aceptar a los humanos pero no a sus distintas razas, por ello no pueden distinguir entre un bárbaro y un ejecutivo porque creen que nacer de un vientre te hace igual. Los (((liberales))) son incapaces de tomar en cuenta las ramificaciones de lo que implica una confederación entre tribus que tienen en común una piscina genética, una historia, un pasado y una identidad. Toda vez que aceptan esas premisas en cierta (((tribu))) en particular y se alían con ella para luchar con uñas y dientes. Los liberales permiten a cierta (((tribu))) formar relaciones de manera espontánea entre ellos, formar familias entre ellos, organizar comunidades a lo interno y sellarlas del resto de la sociedad, con costumbres y formas de las que están orgullosos y valoran, toda vez que a otros demográficos más numerosos que ellos son privados de ese privilegio porque se usa un tótem ideológico creado posterior a 1945 en Europa central y del Este. Los liberales no aceptan que la sociedad es dueña de si misma. Para obtener los beneficios de la cooperación pacífica y económica así como una pacífica coexistencia entre tribus, debemos crear una aceptación social y confiar en los derechos de propiedad. Las sociedades abiertas y cooperantes surgen de este tipo de inversiones comunes unas a otras toda vez que respetan la diversidad real de cada grupo sin la creación de una ensalada multicultural. Los libertarios se ven a si mismos como autorizados por la providencia a obtener estas condiciones de coexistencia pacífica de la cual podría emerger la cooperación económica voluntaria, pero estas cosas tienen un precios y se rehúsan a pagar la cuota que buscan ganar de las propiedades en común por medio del robo (((parasitario))).
Solo mirad lo que los hombres occidentales creamos
Fuimos capaces de desarrollar mercados por medio del ejercicio de las leyes naturales.Con ese cuerpo de leyes se le permitió a hombres que son soberanos débiles e incapaces de defender y ejercer su soberanía el poder participar en un mercado de bienes y servicios con la condición de que limitaran sus transacciones a ser productivas, garantizadas en su totalidad, recíprocas y que no trajeran consecuencias negativas a las partes involucradas en el intercambio y a terceros. Los que creemos en el propietarismo y en decir la verdad llamamos a ese concepto LIBERTAD. Y la libertad es posible si se construyen los bienes y servicios que llamamos el “Imperio de la Ley”, el cual pagamos a soberanos federales como militares, jueces, policías y en una última instancia a nuestros Reyes.
Los (((liberales))) son sólo marxistas de propiedades en común.
Mientras haya mercado para el Estado, el Estado existirá
Estos (((personajes))) se equivocan a cada rato, a propósito y siempre con el mismo error en mayores o menores grados. Los liberales anárquicos buscan la abolición del estado (al igual que los comunistas), esas ideas proceden de un mismo tronco de un árbol con ciertas (((raíces))), si se desea eliminar al estado, se debe eliminar el mercado para que el mercado exista. Y desear que esto suceda es meramente una puerilidad propia de adolescentes encerrados en las casas de sus padres con mucho internet y demasiada acceso a pornografía literaria y audiovisual. El poder judicial occidental como lo entendemos ha tenido la capacidad de evolucionar en todos los rincones de Occidente y ha logrado suprimir los espirales sin fin de retaliación, venganza y barbarie entre individuos, tribus, familias, clanes al estandarizar los castigos y prohibir futuros espirales de violencia. La universalidad de este hecho histórico contradice todo dogma (((libertario))) sobre la naturaleza de los hombres, el estado del hombre y el proceso de la resolución de conflictos. Si se desea eliminar el mercado para que el Estado exista, se debe eliminar la demanda para la agresión y se debe eliminar la demanda para la venganza. Esto quiere decir suprimir la oportunidad de que un hombre sea violento para con su semejante y que se provean medios para la resolución de disputas que aseguren en contra de un espiral de violencia y agresión vengativa sin fin. La mayoría de las personas nunca están contentas con los fallos y dictámenes de las diversas cortes y tribunales, y les da miedo la capacidad de castigo de los jueces.
Cuando sea que hayamos usado aseguradores (jueces) que compitan entre si, no estamos en presencia de un sistema de justicia sino que hemos degenerado nuestro sistema judicial en aseguradores con conflictos personales y no guiados por la ley.
Los jueces que tienen conflictos entre tribus judiciales son más peligrosos que delincuentes individuales, rencillas familiares y conflictos tribales porque buscan lucrarse de ese tipo de actividades. Las organizaciones buscan dominar, (crear monopolios) y de allí es que todos los Estados se originan sin importar su tamaño: Son entes que aseguran la existencia de monopolios en última instancia para frenar a otros estados. Esta es la narrativa histórica que contrarresta el dogma propiedad privada-vs-marxismo y el dogma propiedad comunal-vs-marxismo (((liberalismo))). Esto es una verdad que incomoda. Lo sé.
Los libertarios sólo crean teoría crítica a lo Francfort
Los (((libertarios))) opinan mucho sobre lo que constituye la agresión, pero han pasado décadas y todos ellos han fracasado estrepitosamente al intentar definir eso. Pareciera que nunca pueden discernir que no es el actor quien determina sino la víctima quien sentirá su patrimonio e integridad vulnerada y buscara defenderse y por ello determinar cual es el enfoque y definición de lo que considera le pertenece. Y es la comunidad de aseguradores (el ente político y estatal) los que previenen los conflictos. Y el estado actúa como un asegurador monopólico que previene conflictos entre partes. Ciertamente el estado puede extralimitarse e ir más allá de sus competencias regulatorias en forma de leyes, en su poder de poder recaudar tributos, y en su búsqueda arbitraria de poder en vez de actuar como un asegurador monopólico. Los problemas del estado se originan en discreción y en el empleo a tiempo completo de servicios organizacionales en vez una democracia económica directa y empleos por subcontratación, (dicho de otro modo, la tercerización es buena). En lo que respecta al imperio de la ley, éste elimina la regulación arbitraria. La democracia directa elimina la tributación arbitraria. Los subcontratistas proveen servicios de forma más eficaz que los burócratas. El poder judicial puede ser independinete y autónomo. Asi funcionan las monarquías y les va bien. Y así funcionan los ejércitos y cumplen su propósito. Las monarquías antiguas manejaban de forma muy eficaz sus bienes y servicios. No existen modelos superiores al imperio de la ley natural. Las monarquías hereditarias tenían a jueces independientes, una cámara del senado y de diputados que legislaban tomando en cuenta que la Ley Natural es la más justa y de ese tipo de gobiernos surgían mercados que producían y ofertaban bienes y servicios con los cuales los hombres podían comerciar intercambiando valor por valor. Esto es la democracia económica directa, que da poder a los hombres y los ayuda a contribuir con los tributos al elegir cómo quieren que sus impuestos sean invertidos por el estado. La otra manera de ver las cosas es con los lentes del (((Liberalismo))) o lo que es lo mismo, el separatismo de la diáspora judía, otra producto del marxismo y la historia marxista. Y no hace otra cosa sino la corrupción moral de la sociedad y otorgar licencia a la inmoralidad toda vez que prohíbe todo tipo de violencia retaliatoria hacia esa conducta inmoral.
Al final, quienes terminan defendiendo la libertad son hombres en uniformes – Julius Evola.
Sólo existe una fuente de libertad: Un ejército armado, un poder judicial independiente, un monarca como juez de última instancia. y la ley natural, que es común a todos los hombres, descubierta por los juristas en forma de ley. Esa es la religión sagrada política de los hombres. Alberto Zambrano Para el Instituto Propietarista **Nota: En este escrito uso de forma intercambiable liberal, y libertario porque esencialmente son corrientes afines y sinónimas.
-
REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGIES AND MARKETS by Joel Davis A polity can only generate the
REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGIES AND MARKETS
by Joel Davis
A polity can only generate the sovereign power necessary to establish and defend itself via competitiveness in the violence market.
Production (Brotherly) and Reproduction (Motherly) Strategies obviously require cultivation to successfully compete fundamentally in intergroup Violence (Fatherly).
Without production you lack weapons technology and food and shelter for your soldiers, without reproduction you lack soldiers.
However, through the institutions of property and marriage, individuals compete individually within the polity with one another for individual success.
In the institution of military, individuals must cooperate for the good of the group, they sacrifice their individual potential cost to accrue benefits to group fitness.
Fundamentally, participation in intergroup violence brings the individual’s interests in allignment with the group’s interests.
Individuals who merely compete in the markets for production and reproduction lack this grounding, they compete with the other members of their polity on behalf of themselves, not each other, hence they require regulation through the institutions of property and marriage to limit negative externalities from their behaviour. If given power, these people will rationally vote in their self-interest to transfer wealth to themselves, not the collective interest to transfer wealth to their group.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-20 18:40:00 UTC