Seriously. Something is going on. Lots of new people are joining again. Other oddity: people are saying my feed is showing up in their feeds again. Another even odder thing: my feed is showing up in google alerts again? Still can’t search my back posts. FB index isn’t working.
No idea where all the newbs are coming from but it’s wonderful. 😉
Welcome. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-14 21:15:00 UTC
I categorize P as describing the intellectual foundations for western civlization that the populists currently are demanding but don’t know how to express in rational and scientific terms.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-14 20:52:00 UTC
P EMPHASIZES THE COURT (effective) NOT VOTING (ineffective) https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/14/p-emphasizes-the-court-effective-not-voting-ineffective/
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-14 16:00:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1228348295992532996
THE LIMITS OF P IN MATE RELATIONSHIPS
—“I’ve falling in love with the phrase, “Baiting into hazard”. I use it on my wife almost daily. She looks at me funny. That’s ok, she can’t help it. It’s genetic.”—@EricLiford
[W]omen function by seduction of men by sex and affection; women by attention, cooperation, alliance, and insurance; and children by affection, information, care taking, dependency, and protection. So trying to get women to stop using seduction will just masculinize them and lose all their value as the central unit of family and social cooperation. The question isn’t whether women are seducing you, but whether the promise offered by their seduction is true. Just don’t lie to each other. It’s not complicated. You will find both men and women who make false promises in order to obtain discounts on acquisition of experience, information, cooperation, consumption, or capital. Men have only loyalty and strength women have only devotion and seduction. Let women be women. Encourage them to be women. The more seduction in the world the more wonderful it is. The only question is whether it’s a false promise or a truthful reciprocal, warrantied offer of exchange.
THE LIMITS OF P IN MATE RELATIONSHIPS
—“I’ve falling in love with the phrase, “Baiting into hazard”. I use it on my wife almost daily. She looks at me funny. That’s ok, she can’t help it. It’s genetic.”—@EricLiford
[W]omen function by seduction of men by sex and affection; women by attention, cooperation, alliance, and insurance; and children by affection, information, care taking, dependency, and protection. So trying to get women to stop using seduction will just masculinize them and lose all their value as the central unit of family and social cooperation. The question isn’t whether women are seducing you, but whether the promise offered by their seduction is true. Just don’t lie to each other. It’s not complicated. You will find both men and women who make false promises in order to obtain discounts on acquisition of experience, information, cooperation, consumption, or capital. Men have only loyalty and strength women have only devotion and seduction. Let women be women. Encourage them to be women. The more seduction in the world the more wonderful it is. The only question is whether it’s a false promise or a truthful reciprocal, warrantied offer of exchange.
Reminds me of how European civilisation way back to the Indo-Europeans and the various subcultures have always had a tripartite class structure, with separate functions and incentives. Is that what you’re getting at with trifunctionalism? — Reece Haynes
Exactly: Priests, judges, scientists — Curt
Responsible for:Priest – what we do not know that we do not know Judge – what we know that we do not know Scientist – what we know. —Luke Weinhagen
Reminds me of how European civilisation way back to the Indo-Europeans and the various subcultures have always had a tripartite class structure, with separate functions and incentives. Is that what you’re getting at with trifunctionalism? — Reece Haynes
Exactly: Priests, judges, scientists — Curt
Responsible for:Priest – what we do not know that we do not know Judge – what we know that we do not know Scientist – what we know. —Luke Weinhagen
Feb 13, 2020, 10:15 AM [I] don’t think it’s coming across. We aren’t trying to get consensus on reciprocity under some form of a P constitution. We’re saying that the only reason not to conquer, deprive, rule, tax, enserf, enslave, or much worse, is under reciprocity – and there is no possibility to counter it.
Feb 13, 2020, 10:15 AM [I] don’t think it’s coming across. We aren’t trying to get consensus on reciprocity under some form of a P constitution. We’re saying that the only reason not to conquer, deprive, rule, tax, enserf, enslave, or much worse, is under reciprocity – and there is no possibility to counter it.
[I] hadn’t seen this yet but thank you – because that’s exactly the test, the scope of test, and the clarity of findings an accessibility we need. Again, ethnocentric, small state, low power distance, rule of law of reciprocity, truth-telling, markets in everything. @Ozpin_88′ I hadn’t seen this yet but thank you – because that’s exactly the test, the scope of test, and the clarity of findings an accessibility we need. Again, ethnocentric, small state, low power distance, rule of law of reciprocity, truth-telling, markets in everything. @Ozpin_88