Form: Sketch

  • “THE GREATER THE DIVERSITY THE MORE POWERFUL THE STATE” The potential capacity f

    “THE GREATER THE DIVERSITY THE MORE POWERFUL THE STATE”

    The potential capacity for advantageous mating determines the cooperation between groups.

    1) A weak state and a homogenous population = civil society.

    2) A strong state and a homogenous population = a redistributive society

    3) A strong state and a heterogeneous population = a tribal society (dysfunctional)

    4) A weak state and a heterogeneous population = cannot and does not exist.

    ________________:___Heterogeneous_____Homogenous___

    Weak State___________(conflict)____________Civil_________

    Strong State __________Tribal___________Redistributive___

    MEANS OF REPRODUCTIVE DIVERSITY

    1) Structure of Production (Economy)

    2) Size of Family Structure in Structure of Production (Family)

    3) Genetic Distance for the purpose of mate selection (Desirability)

    4) Metaphysical Distance for the purpose of decision making. (Culture)

    Note that family structure alone is sufficient to create the moral diversity that creates conflict. Also note that the greater the distance of the classes, the more the family structure must change to reflect them.

    The USA has a enormous genetic distance, and a wide set of family structures to support them.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-12 00:32:00 UTC

  • MORAL CAPITAL, ECONOMICS, CONSUMPTION (a table)(insight) The Long Term – The Med

    MORAL CAPITAL, ECONOMICS, CONSUMPTION

    (a table)(insight)

    The Long Term – The Medium Term – The Short Term

    Conservatives…- Libertarians ……….- Progressives

    Moral Capital….- Productive Capital.- Consumption

    The Tribe……….- The Family…………- The Offspring

    Militia……………- Industry…………….- Services

    Law……………… – Trade……………….- Religion

    Force…………… – Remuneration……- Words (shame)

    Male……………..- Neutral……………..- Female

    Order……………- Wealth……………..- Care-taking

    Warrior………….- Merchant…………..- Mother

    THE INTER-TEMPORAL DIVISION OF LABOR

    We aren’t engaged in a dialectic, but a tri-alectic, between the production cycles of the tribe, the family, and the child.

    WE ARE A LOT CLOSER TO ANTS AND BEES THAN WE ADMIT.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-10 06:12:00 UTC

  • INSURER: FAMILIES vs UNIONS vs INSURERS vs PARTIES (sketch of a thought) Declini

    INSURER: FAMILIES vs UNIONS vs INSURERS vs PARTIES

    (sketch of a thought)

    Declining guarantee of return:

    1) Family (pay limited mutual support)

    2) Insurer (Pay premiums)

    3) Union (Pay dues)

    4) Party (Pay donations)


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-08 15:31:00 UTC

  • (16-17, 17-21, 17-18, 18-23, 22-42, 40-44, 24-? ) {16:1,17:3,18:3,19:2,20:2,21:1

    (16-17, 17-21, 17-18, 18-23, 22-42, 40-44, 24-? )

    {16:1,17:3,18:3,19:2,20:2,21:1,22:2,23:2,24:2,25:2,26:1-39:1,40:2,41:2,42:2,43:1,44:1,45:0.}

    Hmmm….


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-05 08:24:00 UTC

  • Eliminating the Corporation Insured by the State

    (Sketch) Eliminate the state sponsored corporation. A corporation is a partnership whose members are insured by a monopoly insurer insulated from competition: the state. All associations are, and only can be, partnerships. Restore right of suit for any and all involuntary transfers, outside of morally sanctioned competition, against any and all individuals within the partnership and their agents. Require insurance bonds be purchased by the partnership. Require all employees be bonded if they communicate with or act on behalf of, customers. (The incentives will favor truth telling and allocate money and status to truth-tellers.) Stock certificates shall not represent ownership, but a purchase of contractual rights to dividends that are guaranteed by the assets in the event of liquidation or sale. Control then shall not be democratic, but contractual.

  • Eliminating the Corporation Insured by the State

    (Sketch) Eliminate the state sponsored corporation. A corporation is a partnership whose members are insured by a monopoly insurer insulated from competition: the state. All associations are, and only can be, partnerships. Restore right of suit for any and all involuntary transfers, outside of morally sanctioned competition, against any and all individuals within the partnership and their agents. Require insurance bonds be purchased by the partnership. Require all employees be bonded if they communicate with or act on behalf of, customers. (The incentives will favor truth telling and allocate money and status to truth-tellers.) Stock certificates shall not represent ownership, but a purchase of contractual rights to dividends that are guaranteed by the assets in the event of liquidation or sale. Control then shall not be democratic, but contractual.

  • The Female Arms Race Against Men: 'how Many People Can I Rally'?

    (draft)(sketch)(interesting idea) (REVISED) AGAINST ‘RALLYING’ and ‘SHAMING’. The anti-gun emotional-reaction by women is not rational or empirical, but instinctual. . The female strategy for controlling her reproduction is to rally others to her defense. A man with a weapon both intimidates her, and reduces the value of ‘others’. Any empirical argument she makes is justificationary, not scientific. Our moral intuitions are not rational. Some women are so solipsistic that they see a rapist behind every T-shirt and necktie. They have it backwards of course, as the evidence shows. The problem for women is that they have as hard a time suppressing their irrational emotions as we males have suppressing our physicality. There are higher consequences for our failure to suppress physicality, and we assumed that there are lower consequences for failure of women to suppress rallying. But we were WRONG. We have retained constraints on male physicality, and abandoned constraints on female solipsism and emotional control over rallying us via emotion. We have stopped ‘punishing women’ for improper rallying, but retained the punishment of men for improper physicality. This has allowed women to immorally use ‘rallying’ the same way men rally crowds with violence. But while violence may be destructive to property, women’s solipsistic uncontrolled emotions empower the minority of males to use the violence of the state, and to increase the extraction of rents and increase their free riding by coddling women. Women would have themselves feel free to rally. But we men unfree to resist rallying. Rallying in the form of the state. We evolved to take women seriously, in the sense that they are troubled by something we feel the need to fix it. But there are many things that they are not to be taken seriously about. There are many things that they should be actively suppressed about rallying for, out of their instinctual, visceral reactions rather than rational reactions. And this is one of them. Freedom, liberty, and safety, and the equality and demand for reason that comes from the use of arms, is to important to tolerate women’s inappropriate rallying. We must remember that women’s rallying IS A WEAPON. It evolved AS A WEAPON. It is possibly the cause for the origin of SPEECH: rallying. But female rallying is violence against us and it is a weapon, just as carrying a weapon is defense against RALLYING. Women marry the state and rally statists and fools. It is an arms race. And we cannot let them win. SHAMING Is an act of theft. RALLYING is an act of aggression. Never tolerate either from women. REQUIRE REASON not RALLYING or SHAMING.

  • The Female Arms Race Against Men: ‘how Many People Can I Rally’?

    (draft)(sketch)(interesting idea) (REVISED) AGAINST ‘RALLYING’ and ‘SHAMING’. The anti-gun emotional-reaction by women is not rational or empirical, but instinctual. . The female strategy for controlling her reproduction is to rally others to her defense. A man with a weapon both intimidates her, and reduces the value of ‘others’. Any empirical argument she makes is justificationary, not scientific. Our moral intuitions are not rational. Some women are so solipsistic that they see a rapist behind every T-shirt and necktie. They have it backwards of course, as the evidence shows. The problem for women is that they have as hard a time suppressing their irrational emotions as we males have suppressing our physicality. There are higher consequences for our failure to suppress physicality, and we assumed that there are lower consequences for failure of women to suppress rallying. But we were WRONG. We have retained constraints on male physicality, and abandoned constraints on female solipsism and emotional control over rallying us via emotion. We have stopped ‘punishing women’ for improper rallying, but retained the punishment of men for improper physicality. This has allowed women to immorally use ‘rallying’ the same way men rally crowds with violence. But while violence may be destructive to property, women’s solipsistic uncontrolled emotions empower the minority of males to use the violence of the state, and to increase the extraction of rents and increase their free riding by coddling women. Women would have themselves feel free to rally. But we men unfree to resist rallying. Rallying in the form of the state. We evolved to take women seriously, in the sense that they are troubled by something we feel the need to fix it. But there are many things that they are not to be taken seriously about. There are many things that they should be actively suppressed about rallying for, out of their instinctual, visceral reactions rather than rational reactions. And this is one of them. Freedom, liberty, and safety, and the equality and demand for reason that comes from the use of arms, is to important to tolerate women’s inappropriate rallying. We must remember that women’s rallying IS A WEAPON. It evolved AS A WEAPON. It is possibly the cause for the origin of SPEECH: rallying. But female rallying is violence against us and it is a weapon, just as carrying a weapon is defense against RALLYING. Women marry the state and rally statists and fools. It is an arms race. And we cannot let them win. SHAMING Is an act of theft. RALLYING is an act of aggression. Never tolerate either from women. REQUIRE REASON not RALLYING or SHAMING.

  • The Female Arms Race Against Men: 'how Many People Can I Rally'?

    (draft)(sketch)(interesting idea) (REVISED) AGAINST ‘RALLYING’ and ‘SHAMING’. The anti-gun emotional-reaction by women is not rational or empirical, but instinctual. . The female strategy for controlling her reproduction is to rally others to her defense. A man with a weapon both intimidates her, and reduces the value of ‘others’. Any empirical argument she makes is justificationary, not scientific. Our moral intuitions are not rational. Some women are so solipsistic that they see a rapist behind every T-shirt and necktie. They have it backwards of course, as the evidence shows. The problem for women is that they have as hard a time suppressing their irrational emotions as we males have suppressing our physicality. There are higher consequences for our failure to suppress physicality, and we assumed that there are lower consequences for failure of women to suppress rallying. But we were WRONG. We have retained constraints on male physicality, and abandoned constraints on female solipsism and emotional control over rallying us via emotion. We have stopped ‘punishing women’ for improper rallying, but retained the punishment of men for improper physicality. This has allowed women to immorally use ‘rallying’ the same way men rally crowds with violence. But while violence may be destructive to property, women’s solipsistic uncontrolled emotions empower the minority of males to use the violence of the state, and to increase the extraction of rents and increase their free riding by coddling women. Women would have themselves feel free to rally. But we men unfree to resist rallying. Rallying in the form of the state. We evolved to take women seriously, in the sense that they are troubled by something we feel the need to fix it. But there are many things that they are not to be taken seriously about. There are many things that they should be actively suppressed about rallying for, out of their instinctual, visceral reactions rather than rational reactions. And this is one of them. Freedom, liberty, and safety, and the equality and demand for reason that comes from the use of arms, is to important to tolerate women’s inappropriate rallying. We must remember that women’s rallying IS A WEAPON. It evolved AS A WEAPON. It is possibly the cause for the origin of SPEECH: rallying. But female rallying is violence against us and it is a weapon, just as carrying a weapon is defense against RALLYING. Women marry the state and rally statists and fools. It is an arms race. And we cannot let them win. SHAMING Is an act of theft. RALLYING is an act of aggression. Never tolerate either from women. REQUIRE REASON not RALLYING or SHAMING.

  • The Female Arms Race Against Men: ‘how Many People Can I Rally’?

    (draft)(sketch)(interesting idea) (REVISED) AGAINST ‘RALLYING’ and ‘SHAMING’. The anti-gun emotional-reaction by women is not rational or empirical, but instinctual. . The female strategy for controlling her reproduction is to rally others to her defense. A man with a weapon both intimidates her, and reduces the value of ‘others’. Any empirical argument she makes is justificationary, not scientific. Our moral intuitions are not rational. Some women are so solipsistic that they see a rapist behind every T-shirt and necktie. They have it backwards of course, as the evidence shows. The problem for women is that they have as hard a time suppressing their irrational emotions as we males have suppressing our physicality. There are higher consequences for our failure to suppress physicality, and we assumed that there are lower consequences for failure of women to suppress rallying. But we were WRONG. We have retained constraints on male physicality, and abandoned constraints on female solipsism and emotional control over rallying us via emotion. We have stopped ‘punishing women’ for improper rallying, but retained the punishment of men for improper physicality. This has allowed women to immorally use ‘rallying’ the same way men rally crowds with violence. But while violence may be destructive to property, women’s solipsistic uncontrolled emotions empower the minority of males to use the violence of the state, and to increase the extraction of rents and increase their free riding by coddling women. Women would have themselves feel free to rally. But we men unfree to resist rallying. Rallying in the form of the state. We evolved to take women seriously, in the sense that they are troubled by something we feel the need to fix it. But there are many things that they are not to be taken seriously about. There are many things that they should be actively suppressed about rallying for, out of their instinctual, visceral reactions rather than rational reactions. And this is one of them. Freedom, liberty, and safety, and the equality and demand for reason that comes from the use of arms, is to important to tolerate women’s inappropriate rallying. We must remember that women’s rallying IS A WEAPON. It evolved AS A WEAPON. It is possibly the cause for the origin of SPEECH: rallying. But female rallying is violence against us and it is a weapon, just as carrying a weapon is defense against RALLYING. Women marry the state and rally statists and fools. It is an arms race. And we cannot let them win. SHAMING Is an act of theft. RALLYING is an act of aggression. Never tolerate either from women. REQUIRE REASON not RALLYING or SHAMING.