[N]AP was employed by separatists to attempt to assert that out-group non-retaliation was a rule for in-group cooperation. Jewish law, culture, and religion attempt to preserve separatism so that they gain the benefits of the host’s commons production, without paying for the normative commons. Just as Gypsies do, but gypsies keep the cost low enough, and appeal to our altruism enough, that the cost of extermination is more than we are willing to pay. Jews do not limit their parasitism, and perform it largely through externality or deception, and this is why they are, over the centuries, repeatedly retaliated against: because the cost has become high enough that hosts must. This is not unknown since jewish authors discuss this problem openly.
Form: Short Note
-
Drones Hovering
[D]rones Hovering 1) We probably need to maintain a right of Transitus (transit) but not a right of Observo(observation) or Usus (use) for drones. I can’t see how to get around this. That means that you must have the ability to navigate but not the ability to observe. (this is pretty easy. we put blinders on horses, we can put a horizontal blinder on transiting drones. 2) Rights of Observo(observation) into human activity(not territory alone) require either permission or warrant. In other words, if you have a big ranch, or a territorial view, and the drone is silent, and in transit, it is hard to say that this infringes on your actions. However if your actions are being observed,such that you are put at risk of either embarrassment for normal activities (sex, affection, emotional release, play), or put at risk for predation (gathering information with which to engage in the imposition of costs), then 3) What I would expect to see otherwise is the equivalent of camouflage netting, designed to defeat drones, or active repulsion systems designed to blind them when attempting to observe homes. 4) What I hope someone creates is drones that kill other drones. These are very cheap to make, and a ‘necessary’ defense mechanism against the possibility of predation enhanced by observation (spying). As a criminal endeavor it is quite easy to use drones to look for homes to rob. It is also easy to use drones to attack power lines. So a drone in motion at altitude is somewhat hard to criticize. While a drone hovering or exploring private property is not.
-
The Family Institution…
[W]ithout the family we create great incentive for defectors, and we increase vastly the cost of individual housing, insurance, and sustenance and survival, That’s all. Marriage makes people wealthier by lowering costs, and creating a higher barrier to reproduction that prevents the underclasses from reproductive parasitism. So it is less important that our BEST breed a LOT, than it is for our worst not to breed even a little. IT IS LESS IMPORTANT FOR OUR BEST TO BREED A LOT THAN IT IS FOR OUR WORST NOT TO BREED EVEN A LITTLE
-
The Family Institution…
[W]ithout the family we create great incentive for defectors, and we increase vastly the cost of individual housing, insurance, and sustenance and survival, That’s all. Marriage makes people wealthier by lowering costs, and creating a higher barrier to reproduction that prevents the underclasses from reproductive parasitism. So it is less important that our BEST breed a LOT, than it is for our worst not to breed even a little. IT IS LESS IMPORTANT FOR OUR BEST TO BREED A LOT THAN IT IS FOR OUR WORST NOT TO BREED EVEN A LITTLE
-
Without the family we create great incentive for defectors, and we increase vast
Without the family we create great incentive for defectors, and we increase vastly the cost of individual housing, insurance, and sustenance and survival, That’s all.
Marriage makes people wealthier by lowering costs, and creating a higher barrier to reproduction that prevents the underclasses from reproductive parasitism.
So it is less important that our BEST breed a LOT, than it is for our worst not to breed even a little.
IT IS LESS IMPORTANT FOR OUR BEST TO BREED A LOT THAN IT IS FOR OUR WORST NOT TO BREED EVEN A LITTLE
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 05:56:00 UTC
-
THE CHALLENGE OF OUR TIME IS DECEIT. We spend a lot of time on logical fallacies
THE CHALLENGE OF OUR TIME IS DECEIT.
We spend a lot of time on logical fallacies, which assume mere error on the part of one’s opponent.
We have begun to spend a lot of time on Cognitive Biases which affect one’s opponent.
But both of these disciplines assume that the other party errs. When the problem of modern era, is not error but deception: lying.
Social Pseudoscience, Keynesian Pseudoscience, postmodernism, rationalist obscurantism, propaganda and overloading, rallying and shaming, feminism, political correctness, religion and mysticism, democratic secular humanism (a pseudoscientific religion).
All of these are possible not by error, not by bias, but by the organized use of language and media as a means of conducting theft by deception.
The problem of our time is DECEPTION. How do we cleanse the commons of deceit?
That’s why I work on Testimonialism (truth telling) and propertarianism (limits of human action) and propertarian liberalism (the market construction of commons.)
End the century of lies.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 03:45:00 UTC
-
THE PROBLEM OF MORAL INTENT WITHOUT SKILLS OF MORAL ACTION The moral man is skep
THE PROBLEM OF MORAL INTENT WITHOUT SKILLS OF MORAL ACTION
The moral man is skeptical. If you come at me with questions it would be the actions of a moral man.
But as a teacher of others and a philosopher myself I grasp that it is quite difficult to ask questions when you do not know what to ask.
So the only option available to one is to criticize until one knows what questions to ask.
So it is not necessarily that one intends immorality. It is that we stumble the best we can with the skills at our disposal.
As such you have moral intent but not the ability to act morally.
I often spend a generous amount of time with those of moral intent but lacking in moral skills, in order to help them discover what questions they might want to ask.
This is my contribution to the commons. Tolerance. Patience. Cost. A cost for which many people have suggested I waste my time.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 02:39:00 UTC
-
MAYBE IT’S NOT OBVIOUS: PROPERTARIANISM IS FOR THE PROSECUTION: THE SHERIFF, THE
MAYBE IT’S NOT OBVIOUS: PROPERTARIANISM IS FOR THE PROSECUTION: THE SHERIFF, THE KNIGHT, THE JUDGE
It’s not belief. It’s not a religion. It’s law. A law for the prosecution of those who have engineered deceptions by which to confiscate our private and common property by appealing to our altruistic morality.
Every Man A Sheriff, Every man a Knight, Every Man A Judge.
No mercy. No forgiveness. No Tolerance.
Make parasitism impossible leaving only participation in the market for the production of commons, goods, and services, the only possible means of survival.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 01:56:00 UTC
-
The Market Determines The Level of Suppression Necessary for a Stateless Polity
[N]ow, without protection all of their accumulated potential – what we call assets – from the imposition of costs, what do people DO? Not what do we WISH they did – because that is fantasy – but what do people do? They retaliate. That’s what they do. If they can’t retaliate they constrain their risk. If their risk constraint is sufficient to inhibit their consumption, then they leave. If enough inability to retaliate occurs, and enough risk constraint occurs, and enough deprivation of consumption occurs, people leave systematically and stop coming systematically. You don’t choose the level of suppression necessary to form a stateless polity: THE MARKET FOR HUMAN COOPERATION DOES. Not sure why this is complicated for a libertine to grasp. But the market determines membership in a exitable and enterable polity. As such people will choose what is in their interest to cooperate with, boycott what is not in their interest to cooperate with, and destroy what is in their interest to destroy. This is natural law.
-
The Market Determines The Level of Suppression Necessary for a Stateless Polity
[N]ow, without protection all of their accumulated potential – what we call assets – from the imposition of costs, what do people DO? Not what do we WISH they did – because that is fantasy – but what do people do? They retaliate. That’s what they do. If they can’t retaliate they constrain their risk. If their risk constraint is sufficient to inhibit their consumption, then they leave. If enough inability to retaliate occurs, and enough risk constraint occurs, and enough deprivation of consumption occurs, people leave systematically and stop coming systematically. You don’t choose the level of suppression necessary to form a stateless polity: THE MARKET FOR HUMAN COOPERATION DOES. Not sure why this is complicated for a libertine to grasp. But the market determines membership in a exitable and enterable polity. As such people will choose what is in their interest to cooperate with, boycott what is not in their interest to cooperate with, and destroy what is in their interest to destroy. This is natural law.