Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Q&A: —“CURT: HOW DOES CONSERVATISM DIFFER FROM IDEOLOGY”— Short answer? Empi

    Q&A: —“CURT: HOW DOES CONSERVATISM DIFFER FROM IDEOLOGY”—

    Short answer? Empiricism vs Irrationalism

    Curt said: —I’ll say that I use the language of natural law to construct institutions of natural law: exchange, rather than trying to argue that one position is superior to another in order to enforce a monopoly decision that I prefer over the monopoly decisions that others prefer—

    .

    Other said: —Would you say this is the distinction between ideology and time-tested principle-based ideas like conservatism?—

    Conservatism: the ancient paternal order of parenting a family, tribe, and nation, into competitive success against other families, tribes, and nations. In the European World this refers to Aristocratic Egalitarianism (access to rule), Manorialism (access to production and consumption), family (access to sex, care, and reproduction), Religion (access to education, representation, insurance, and celebration).

    I tend to refer to the various conservatisms as class-movements within the aristocratic egalitarian system of cooperation, with the national socialists and 88’ers and such as the upper proletariat and lower working class(soldiery, labor, and demand), the traditionalists as the upper working class(nco’s, information and advocacy), the legalists as the middle class(officers, organization and choice), and the martial and judicial castes as the upper class (Monarchy, generals, force and limits).

    And each of our houses the church, the commons, the nobility, and the monarchy still exist but lack separate houses of government for their leadership to coordinate our activities eliminated our ability to use the government to organize in our interests via a market, and instead forced us to work through publications and arguments alone – controlled by the opposition – outside of the government. In other words, by the use of single house democracy (equality) we eliminated both our market for exchanges, our method of decision making, and our organization of collective command and control. From this perspective, egalitarian democracy places the classes which under aristocracy were mutually interdependent, into chaos, and puts us into slavery of the media, academy, special interests, and the state monopoly bureaucracy.

    Now, what does that have to do with your question? Well, it gives me a foundation upon which to answer it:

    Ideology refers to a method by which you incite groups under democracy, to vote for a particular representative set of policies, and ideologies need not be categorically consistent, logically consistent, empirically consistent, morally consistent. And moreover, it is better if tehy are not, since consistent arguments are open to rational criticism while ideological arguments merely justify and agitate intuitionistic desires. Ideologies are a property of democracy.

    A Philosophy refers to a set of categorically consistent, internally consistent, often externally correspondent at least in part, and very often morally consistent method of decision making at the personal (psychological), interpersonal (ethical), sociological (group), political (commons), and inter-political (group competitive) levels. And we can produce philosophical systems across all or just one of those levels.

    By the term “A time-tested principle” I assume you mean and empirically demonstrable via evidence of survival as a means of group competition against other groups. And yes, that is aristocratic egalitarian empiricism in a nutshell. Why?

    Well, we discovered truth because of our battle techniques (voluntary professional warrior caste) and the members of the military that must hold to plan and formation (oath), where military epistemology of military people is extremely unforgiving and therefore highly empirical, and lightly loaded, if not totally unloaded (which is what they try to teach you in basic training: giving unloaded information to superiors on command.)

    Anyone willing to buy a share (fight), could join the corporation (military), and as a consequence, obtain property rights (sovereignty), and voting rights (permission to speak his mind), and judicial rights (right to settle disputes).

    We evolved sovereignty(independence/individualism), debate, reason, logic, science, contract, natural law, independent judiciary, independent religion, independent government, as continuous extensions of the basic ethic of empirical decision making, truthful testimony, jury of peers, and voluntary contribution to commons. We say we invented the corporation but we had been practicing it since before recorded history.

    A conservative (aristocratic egalitarian) is not against experimentation, but in favor of empiricism: “show me first”. (a) it must be productive and non-parasitic (meritocratic), (b) it must be exitable if it fails, and (c) it must be reversible (restitution). If your experiment survives real world testing then we may expand these tests to larger circles. Once they have been proven we will adopt them as conservative (empirical) fully tested values (science).

    Conservatism has always been scientific.

    The problem is, we started to lie. We started to lie first, with Christianity. We spread that lie widely. Then when we came to modernity, and to the end of Christianity’s control over the government, we lied again: we said that man had been oppressed by the nobility, rather than domesticated out of barbarism through the continuous process of meritocracy. We destroyed the market for cooperation between the classes, and enfranchised both women and competitors. Then the Cosmopolitans came along and exaggerated our lie, saying that nobility was always parasitic rather than productive through domestication, and that the underclasses should and could rule, and that such a rule would not be parasitic but fair.

    So we are the victims of both western and Jewish lies. And the only way to restore our COMPATIBILITY versus competition is to use the organized application of violence to end all the lies and recreate a market for exchange, decisions, and command and control for all the classes.

    This is probably far deeper an analysis than you were looking for but as thorough, it is one we can share with others for years to come. So thank you for asking it.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 06:27:00 UTC

  • Q&A: —“CURT: WHATS YOUR POSITION ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY”— INTELLECTUAL PRO

    Q&A: —“CURT: WHATS YOUR POSITION ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY”—

    INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

    Forms of Intellectual Property:

    * Trademarks and Branding (Weight and Measure) (may not misrepresent as identical)

    * Creative Commons and Open Source ( free use for non-commercial use)

    * Copyright (License fees to inventors of creative products)

    * Patents (license fees to inventors of material products )

    * Legal Privileges (license fees on partial or total monopolies)

    Trademarks and branding were developed as a weight and measure to both to prevent people from fraudulently representing work, and to provide traceability if the weight and measure was violated by substandard manufacture. There is no more conflict over trademarking than there is over any other standard weight, measure, or title registry.

    Copyrights might have been issued as a perk to authors from the crown, but they evolved into a standard practice, if for no other reason than humans in protestant societies object to profiting from the work products of others.

    Creative commons and Open Source licenses evolved out of copyright in order to allow non-commercial use and copying. Which solves the problem of profiting without contributing to the works of others, versus the ability to copy that which is easily copied. Creative commons solves the problem of allowing profiteering on the backs of others.

    Worse, the reason we have so much (crap) published in every medium, and the reason we have an immoral media, and an immoral Hollywood, and an immoral publishing system, is the rewards of selling these artificially licensed products. People who write will do so for very little return. Just as people who produce all arts will do so for very little return. Just as people who engage in research will usually do so for very little return. There is no reason provide support when the net result of that support is the conversion of ART FROM A CIVIC COMMONS TO PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. In fact, under that criteria, it is immoral – even heinous – to issue copyrights.

    I suggest that we retain the registry (trademarks) and copyrights, so that people may engage in the reproduction of easily reproducible goods for personal, interpersonal, and civic use, while retaining the prohibition on unproductive profiting (reproduction for profit without compensating the copyright holder), and on fraud (profit through plagiarism).

    Patents have a long history both of existence in one form or another, and of attempts to end them. The problem has been in part that there are good reasons for some, and no point of demarcation (no ‘criteria of decidability’) has been discovered that limits its use.

    There is one benefit of patents in that it forces continuous creativity in some minor property of a process or admixture, and it is possible that without patents we would not see this creativity. However, it we could easily limit patents (grants of partial monopoly), to those at biological, chemical, or atomic level (basic research), and leave engineering (construction) and design (user interfaces) out of it, and then later extend into atomic, chemical, and biological levels at some point in the future when we have reduced those areas to engineering rather than basic research.

    Otherwise, if used as an incentive to conduct basic research (like universities and laboratories), or as an incentive to produce goods with unlikely markets (rare medicines and treatments), or in the future, genetic modifications, a patent can serve as a method of funding off-book subsidy of private research for the production of beneficial commons. For this purpose, it would be immoral to prohibit patents.

    It is difficult to imagine an equivalent of the creative commons or open source movements, for explicitly commercial goods, for personal or civic (non-profit) use. We do not do this today because we already implicitly permit it today. (Given the problem of “I Pencil” it’s almost impossible to create complex goods for personal use, but we encourage it and treat admire it.) So I would argue that we could clarify the right to do so, because this is the area where we get into problems of companies defending uses that they don’t want to because the courts will treat non-defense as license.

    In other words it is rational to separate market-for-profit-using-the-insights-of-others from ‘use’. Or put another way: you cannot prohibit someone from making something for self, family and society by a license to a MARKET monopoly on the SALE of a good. This is the difference that needs clarifying. You cannot tell someone he may not use information to transform something for use, but you can certainly prevent him from participating in the market because it is a COMMONS, by profiting from the innovations of others.

    I suppose I could get into how we create opportunities through population density and the suppression of parasitism using the common law, by requiring PRODUCTIVE, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange between all parties; and then address how the PRODUCT of this collective norm (property) produces opportunities, and that it is these opportunities (a product of the commons) that we compete for, with the best competitor (inventor, investor, producer, distributor) winning the benefits of seizing that opportunity. But I think that the logic and economics of market opportunities is off topic for this discussion. Even though, in order to explain why we require PRODUCTIVE transfers from people rather than parasitic transfers, is the entire purpose of coming together in groups, and incrementally suppressing parasitism through the (negative) prohibition on involuntary unproductive uninformed transfers and negative externalities using rule of law, and the (positive) market reward for productive, informed, voluntary transfers and positive externalities. It’s this process of forcing man (like we have with plants and animals) to engage in productive market participation, in order to benefit from productive market participation of others.

    This possible a great deal to digest, and yet, I could go into far more detail as I’ve shown in the last paragraph. But this is a categorically consistent, logically consistent, morally consistent, empirically consistent,fully accounted,and fairly parsimonious argument that will be difficult to defeat.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy or Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 05:30:00 UTC

  • “All improvement in cooperation comes from parallel increases in informational q

    —“All improvement in cooperation comes from parallel increases in informational quality++ and theft/fraud/conspiracy suppression–.”— something I posted on twitter in response to this question.

    Man is a rational actor. He acts in his rational self-interest at all times, choosing immoral and moral actions by intuitive cost vs benefit; and we can find no exceptions other than kin selection – and arguably that is also in one’s self-interest.

    For this reason we do not make the world a better place, but instead, we create institutions that raise the cost of unhelpful behaviors, and reduce the cost of helpful behaviors.

    Some of the methods we use to suppress immoral behaviors are obvious (law, restitution, punishment), and some are not (the conversion of property from material goods to partial-title) because they make theft more difficult.

    Others are difficult to admit to: that the differences between wealthier and poorer societies is generally explained by the relative sizes of the upper and lower genetic classes, meaning that no amount of effort will help some countries prosper because there are just too many people at the bottom to incentivize with the inventiveness and productivity at the top, using organization provided by the middle.

    So while a one-child policy is necessary in Africa, the Muslim world, and south america it cannot be implemented without the equivalent of the Red Army or the Revolutionary Guard. Which India’s weakness – even literacy has been a problem.

    So we cannot eliminate a tendency as much as eliminate generations with those tendencies, and provide institutions that preserve positive and suppress negative tendencies.

    Man evolves locally and fast. But we must help man do so just as we did under agrarianism – which was not a kind process to those who could not transition to it. They are largely gone. Just as the various other incarnations of man are gone. And we eliminated them from the planet, while walking on foot, over a comparatively small number of millennia.

    If we look back over the past century, most of the harm was done by the communist movement, the facist movement to resist it, and the capitalist movement to eradicate it. The communist movement promised utopian results to backward nations that had not transitioned through the enlightenment. Just as Islam is a utopian movement promising utopian results to backward nations, and using the same strategy as communism except distributed on moral and religoius grounds using weaponized reproduction rather than distributed on economic and political grounds using direct rebellion – a slower path to the same ends: changing the order to one suitable to the underclasses and less suitable to the middle and upper classes.

    The pseudoscientific communist economic movement(Marx) was accompanied by the pseudoscientific social science movement (boaz) and the pseudoscientific psychological movement (freud), and less harmflly the pseudoscientific mathematical moveent( Cantor). And then when by the pseudoscientific cultural movvement (the frankfurt school).

    So my prescription for improvement for mankind is that we can continue the suppression of new methods of theft and fraud by defending the informational commons the same way we defend the air, land, and water from pollution, our physical commons, infrastructure and monuments from physical damage, and our rule of law, govenrment from damage, and our religions and traditions from damage: By outlawing pseudoscience.

    We could not outlaw pseudoscience until very recently because we have only begun to understand truth at scale in the 20th century.

    But now that we know, we can force upon people a warranty of due diligence in speech inserted into the commons the same way we force a warranty of due diligenc upon people who provide goods and services.

    Those due diligences are (Painfully Briefly):

    1 – categorical consistency (identity and non conflation)

    2 – internal consistency (logical)

    3 – external correspondence (empirical consistency)

    4 – existential possibility (operational language)

    5 – ethical consistency (consisting of fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities of the same.)

    6 – scope consistency (defining limits, full accounting, and parsimony)

    We have many such other requirements in the law, and we use these requirements with academics when publishing. And there is no reason we do not demand these same warranties of political speech, which is far more consequential than academic speech.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    KIev, Ukraine

    http://www.drewgl.com/posts/4241

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-14 22:54:00 UTC

  • THE SUBTLE CAUSE OF DIFFERENCES IN RACES AND TRIBES The ethnically Dutch are def

    THE SUBTLE CAUSE OF DIFFERENCES IN RACES AND TRIBES

    The ethnically Dutch are definitely the ‘master tribe’ by any empirical measure. The ethnically north sea (Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Finns and North Germans) are an obvious distance behind.

    If for no other reason than there is greater territorial distance between them and the less evolved people (resistance to invasive genes), and the difficulty of surviving long winters ( selection ), and the combination of late marriage, voluntary mate selection, and near breeding (selection), culling (hanging, starvation, and war).

    The celts ( my mother’s relations, and that of most of Britons ) get to ride-along like the Franks, and the eastern Europeans. But its pretty simple really: Selective breeding over longer periods of time with less of the genes from the sunshine latitudes.

    Evolution progresses upward under lower population density and dysgenia spreads in high population density. This is fairly obvious but that there should be a balance in order to preserve the human condition is something that limits us, and we dislike it.

    Someone sent me a map the other day, that showed genders of western Europeans (r1b, r1a) to be about equally attractive on average(forests: cattle farmers), eastern European females on average to be more attractive than males (Polish Ukrainian Russian), and, along with the increase in black hair, southeastern europeans to be less attractive on average, and middle easterners (turks, iranians, Jews, and Arabs) to be much less attractive on average. This assessment does not include north Africans, black Africans, the caucasian people of India, or the east and southeast Asians.

    But if I look at it as a very simple question of (a) degree of sexual immaturity or maturity, (b) degree of sexual dimorphism, then these two axes reflect both differences in testosterone and estrogen, and differences in sexual maturity.

    – Southeast Asians have lower sexual maturity, lower sexual dimorphism that’s slanted female. High inequality of desirability between women and men.

    – East Asians have lower sexual maturity and lower sexual dimorphism, slanted female. High inequality of desirability between women and men.

    – Eastern and Southern Slavs have lower sexual maturity, (hence the jawline), and higher female dimorphism. Women slightly more desirable than men.

    – Germanic Whites have lower sexual maturity (prolonged adolescence) and higher sexual dimorphism. Men and women equally desirable.

    – The Iranian/jewish branch (vs the celt/germanpolish/ukrainian

    branch), and the arab and berber branches, have higher sexual maturity but level sexual dimorphism. (male emotionalism, females with strong male features). Men more desirable than women.

    – The black africans have very high and fast sexual maturity, superior strength and agility. and masculine slanted sexual dimorphism. High inequality of desirability between women and men.

    CAN TWO AXIS EXPLAIN ALMOST EVERYTHING?

    Lets illustrate using two well-understood extremes: female solipsism and male autism. Women tend toward the solipsistic and men the autistic. Men tend toward the spatio-physical(models and systems), and women to the verbal (individuals and experiences). Rates of maturity reduce time in childhood and adolescence for learning. Rates of maturity increase impulsivity. Search for novelty increases

    THE DATA

    We see this in the desirability of mates on dating and social sites from around the world, and we have such enormous amounts of data now from demonstrated preferences that these questions are no longer hypothetical, but now require refutation that will be difficult to determine.

    WHY DO WE SELECT FOR THESE TRAITS?

    Women select poorly by instinct, and men are not terribly selective at all. Women are attracted to that which they understand, men what visual signs of fertility that they can observe. Marriage and reduction of insurance by the tribe force men and women to mate on long-term survival grounds, rather than on our sexual impulses – which at least for women, do not assist us in collecting desirable traits in civilization. And men are not discriminate enough to select without marriage.

    Taller, more symmetrical, fairer, and all other signs of ‘health’ like hair, skin, head size. But we have to be able to survive our environments with those traits. Africa and high conflict areas need masculine traits, some ver hot areas smaller size, and the polar regions feminine traits are more beneficial, and survivable.

    It’s no secret any longer that there is a difference between how we perceive aspirational beauty (tall blondes) and reproductive frequency (petite brunettes). The petite brunettes have more offspring. And they appear to be far more loyal. And men are more willing to work for them.

    THE RESOURCE CURSE

    The discovery of fossil fuels for the purpose of creating electricity has been a quality of life improvement, but expanded dysgenia in cold climates to match that in warm climates.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Somewhere on planet earth.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-14 04:30:00 UTC

  • WHY DO ASPIES CREATE SUCH COMPLETE MODELS (SYSTEMS)? Actually, its for pretty ob

    WHY DO ASPIES CREATE SUCH COMPLETE MODELS (SYSTEMS)?

    Actually, its for pretty obvious reasons.

    Aspieness (intense world-ers) all behave a little differently but with definite similarity:

    – Individual, intense, interests and experiences – hyper-interest.

    – Thinking in, speaking in, living in, ‘drawers’, not ‘the moment’. –

    – Lacking general consolidated experience (feeling/opinion) normals possess (consolidated human reactions are not present). – ‘cluelessness’.

    – Less sense of ‘self’ and ability to ‘judge’ because of that experience. -weaker identity

    – Some difficulty empathizing with others emotional states.

    – Frustration with social rejection despite desperate desire for it.

    We try to build a world out of one of our intense frames to compensate for our lack of identity and a synthesized frame.

    Sort of the opposite of solipsistic women who can’t separate themselves from reality, we cannot connect ourselves with reality,and try to recreate a model of reality, because there is no ‘self’ we can make value judgments aganst otherwise.

    I don’t consider this a defect, but a necessary talent for a human population, expressible as a sort of specialization.

    We like each other, but we understand also, that despite liking each other, that normals are pretty desirable things.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-13 07:39:00 UTC

  • ANCIENT GROUP STRATEGIES WRIT LARGE – FORESTLANDS: Aristocratic Ethics: What wil

    ANCIENT GROUP STRATEGIES WRIT LARGE

    – FORESTLANDS: Aristocratic Ethics: What will someone not retaliate against even if we agree to it?(rulers/teleological ethics:outcomes) The ethics of warriors who must hold territory. This is a very high cost strategy because while professional warrior aristocracy is militarily superior, smaller numbers mean threats must be constantly suppressed when small, as soon as identified.

    – BORDERLANDS: Cosmopolitan(Jewish) Ethics: What will someone consent to Regardless of future resentment and retaliation? (borderland/subculture/deontological ethics:rules) The ethics of diasporic, migrating traders, or herding peoples who can prey upon the locals who hold territory. This is a very low cost (parasitic) ethics that avoids all contribution to the host commons, but requires preserving the ability to exit (migrate). It is the raider strategy by systemic and verbal rather than physical means.

    – STEPPELANDS: Russian(Orthodox) Ethics: What can I get away with now by negotiation and subterfuge, and hold by force later? (steppe raiders) The ethics of steppe people surrounded by competitors, always hostile and unpredictable. This is a difficult and expensive but only possible strategy, when one is surrounded by hostile opportunity seekers. While seemingly expansive, it’s actually a fearful one – aggression as the only possible means of controlling defensive positions across open territory.

    – RIVERLANDS: Chinese Ethics: What can I get away with now, but over time make impossible to change later? The ethics of long term ruling bureaucratic class. Sun Tzu strategy, and Confucian hyper familism. This is an exceptionally cost-effective strategy if one possesses a territorial resource (heartland), and can fortify that heartland. Riverlands strategy defends against Steppland and Desertland strategies.

    – DESERTLANDS: Muslim Ethics: (I am still working on this one because I don’t get that it’s causal, but opportunistic.) What can I justify now in order to make this minor advance now? And thereby accumulate wins by wearing down opponents over long periods. The ethics of opportunism. As far as I can tell islam is just an excuse for justifying opportunism. We can consider this the combination of religion and justifying opportunism – a long term very successful strategy becuase it’s very low cost.

    – HOSTILELANDS: African Ethics (pre-christian). Africa is akin to the Desertlands because of the sheer number of competitors, the hostility of the disease gradient, the plethora of wildlife, combined with the primitiveness of the available technologies. This is the only possible strategy until one or more core states can evolve, and create sufficient stability in some regions. (this is occurring now).

    CIVILIZATIONS NOT STATES

    It is a mistake (always), to consider conflicts within states over local power (capital allocation), as of the same consequence as conflicts between civilizations over borders. Because the former is a kinship conflict over priorities, while the latter is a genetic conflict over group evolutionary strategies.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-13 05:22:00 UTC

  • REVOLUTIONS IN STRATEGIC CONTEXT Everyone knows how to fix Ukraine. But no one i

    REVOLUTIONS IN STRATEGIC CONTEXT

    Everyone knows how to fix Ukraine. But no one in the country has the power to do it. And the only external group willing to use power to do it, will just make it worse (Russians). Even though the optimum people to do it are their genetic siblings right next door (Poland). And other peoples (the Americans, Canadians, and Germans) have demonstrated a willingness to pay for it. (yes really). Ukraine’s problem is a Jewish-libertarian’s dream: about 40 oligarchs (rich people) who range from men of commercial achievement and character, to Russian ex-gangsters, to families that control judicial corruption, to jews looking to restore Ukraine to their undeclared homeland.

    Very few people know how to fix the United States of America. But because of our arms, our traditions of legal revolt, and culture of aristocratic martial tradition, we have the ability and power to enact that change. We just need to have the will to do it. But because of that same culture we need a moral license, a set of demands, a plan of transition, and a means of revolt, in order to execute our will.

    Now, every major revolution in the anglo world (anglo-saxon-contractualism) has occurred in no small part, because of expansion of the methods of communication and innovations in technology. We have the ability to communicate and coordinate vast numbers of people that no prior era has ever imagined.

    Washington had nothing at all but pocket change, character, and some helpful propagandists who used the printing press. Stalin did what he did and had nothing on par with the tools we have at our disposal. Mao did what he did, and he nad nothing on part with the tools we have at our disposal. Napoleon had a lot more going for him than we do. Cromwell had more at his disposal than we do.

    But whether one is inside the government or outside the government, it does not matter if one has a set of demands, a plan of transition, a means of raising the cost of the status quo through insurrection, a small minority of males willing to risk life and limb, and a communication system capable of distributing information, tactics, and strategy to participants.

    The world has never been so fragile and in such great transition as it is today – or at least, it has not since the Marxist (Jewish) enlightenment inspired the lower classes to seek power as much as the empirical (anglo) enlightenment inspired the middle classes to seek power. But the difference today is that we cannot, under duress, return to the farm. THere are but a few days of food water and energy in the pipline, and in a momentum economy, like a momentum stock market, the system is increasingly vulnerable to shocks. (Thank your Keynesians for their efforts at ‘balanced equilibrium, rather than your Classical Liberals, for their “changes in capital”).

    We can more easily fix america than any group ever chose to fix any nation in history.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    (I have no idea where I am at the moment) 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-13 05:18:00 UTC

  • What if there are no possible futures you desire? What if none you can tolerate?

    What if there are no possible futures you desire? What if none you can tolerate? None you can survive?

    This is the problem of the combination of market economy and unregulated reproduction, and the destruction of the family.

    The market can solve the provision of incentives. But it cannot solve the problem of insufficient demand for human labor of any skill level.

    We can have capitalism and wealth only with reproductive limitations.

    We can have involuntary organisation ( North Korea) and unregulated reproduction and poverty.

    Or we can have a voluntary order for those capable of participating and an involuntary order for those not able to participate. And we can regulate reproduction.

    But then what we have today creates for many, an intolerable or unsurvivable world.

    But you have the left push for policies of dysgenia and the right for policies of eugenics and neither is honest about the reasons they push for policies.

    R selection destroys as certainly as war, disaster, plague and famine.

    They are not kind they are cruel. We are not cruel we are moral.

    The resin we fail is that we do not reduce all our problem to this one question?

    If bearing children creates a moral hazard then how can one claim it is a right and not predation?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-12 10:24:00 UTC

  • BELIEF AND INACTION, TRUTH AND DEMONSTRATED ACTION So, when you say you ‘believe

    BELIEF AND INACTION, TRUTH AND DEMONSTRATED ACTION

    So, when you say you ‘believe’ in something magical, like ghosts, or fairies, or angels, that’s the correct use of the term.

    But instead, you can state a preference or dislike, agree or disagree, understand or not understand, or judge or opine something is false, might be true, or true. And the gold standard of course is do you demonstrate your judgment or opinion, understanding or not, agreement or disagreement, and preference or dislike?

    Because what we say is loaded with signals – even to ourselves. Our actions are evidence that either agrees or disagrees with our statements.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-11 12:26:00 UTC

  • (from elsewhere) Facebook is a good vehicle for testing out certain kinds of arg

    (from elsewhere)

    Facebook is a good vehicle for testing out certain kinds of arguments.

    When I was working through testimonial Truth, no one thought it was very interesting although today I get a lot of credit for my use of truthfulness to defeat the left’s arguments.

    Last year I worked on religion quite a bit, and because that’s an accessible topic, it generated a lot more activity – albeit, most of it drivel.

    I’m very conscious of my experiment: do the work of constructing a philosophical system rationally articulating the western aristocratic model, and do it in public like a traditional craftsman, where people see the good and bad attempts. And directly engaging people from all walks of life.

    Now, you have no way really to judge what you don’t understand, and no reason that you’re aware of why you would invest so heavily in learning a formal argumentative grammar (terms and operations). Especially one that’s so burdensome to construct.

    But then the point of these constructions (proofs), is to eliminate hasty generalizations, obscurantism, loading, framing and overloading, pseudorationalism and pseudoscience, suggestion and deceit.

    Just as it’s somewhat challenging to write and publish research papers in the physical sciences, it is equally difficult to do so in law and social science – if we rely on strict operational construction using an analysis of voluntary and involuntary transfers of various forms of capital.

    So if you are not finding worthy argument on FB, it’s because perhaps worthy argument does not often exist, and if it does, it’s costly to access, and it’s costly to access because proofs in social science (demonstrations of existential possibility free of deceit) are, like proofs in logic or mathematics, or arguments strictly constructed in law – tedious.

    But without that tedium we make tragic catastrophe’s like the rothbardian program that has nearly destroyed the philosophy of liberty.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-10 03:36:00 UTC