Eric Danelaw shared a post to your timeline.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-14 10:43:00 UTC
Eric Danelaw shared a post to your timeline.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-14 10:43:00 UTC
POLITICS IS QUITE SIMPLE REALLY – TRUTH IS SIMPLE, LIES ARE COMPLICATED.
Politics is just a proxy for war. Markets are superior to political orders because they calculate maximum mutual by reciprocity.
The problem as in all things, is producing limits. Capitalism and socialism are both unlimited by reciprocity.
Only rule of law of reciprocity produces markets that discover the balance between private and commons.
We fuss and fume over capitalism vs socialism, or authoritarianism vs anarchism, but the only underlying difference is rule of law and reciprocity vs rule by discretion and reciprocity.
*For, the only purpose of discretion is, and can be, to violate reciprocity*.
And the problem heretofore has been the means of limiting markets by the measurement of capital in toto that changes.
Why? Because humans evolved in a world that easily equilibrated their consumptions within the band or tribe – because they could only externalize costs onto the natural world.
But at current scale, when we cooperate via host of proxies, we can and do largely externalize against others whether kin, polity, nation, competitors, or man. And man retaliates differently and more immediately from nature against those impositions.
So politics is quite simple under meritocracy, and politics is quite complicated under irreciprocity. Under rule of law of reciprocity, markets that result from that rule of law (both private and common) are quite transparent, simple and explicable.
Under the irreciprocity of politics and rule by discretion, the results of that discretion (and deception) is not transparent, complicated, and largely inexplicable.
The principle problem in achieving reciprocity and transparency is the percentage of your population that can survive competition in the market. If a group cannot survive competition in the market because it has too many members that cannot compete in the market, then political discretion, corruption, and irreciprocity evolve out of the necessity of survival.
Ergo the only possible means of producing reciprocity is to prevent the expansion and produce the contraction of those individuals that cannot compete in the market given present technology, resources, and competitors. And in doing so prevent the emergence of a body of elites that employ discretionary rule.
This brief passage explains almost all of politics. The british system and the current scandinavian was possible because of such aggressive culling of the underclasses, and the economic dependence upon the militia for both offense and defense.
The british model preserved tripartism (clergy, nobility, businessmen-farmers ), and thereby produced a government that funcitoned as a market between the ‘able’ classes (aristocracy, nobility, managers of production, and the church (women and underclasses).)
The enlightenment seizure and creating of a monopoly rather than preservation of the market between the classes was made possible by the disproportionate returns on the empirical revolution’s increases in productivity.
Yet that marginal increase in productivity which allowed for great concentration of wealth has increasingly dissipated due to the anglo-american and less-so european distribution and enforcement of consumer capitalism (markets).
Yet most societies have returned to monopoly government rather than market, because of asymmetries in populations and the utility of concentrating capital in the state as a means of projecting military power by which market advantages are gained.
This is all there is to politics. There is very little other to be understood. Everything else is just negotiating position using some sort of fiction.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-14 10:42:00 UTC
Eric Danelaw wrote on a timeline.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-14 10:42:00 UTC
Eric Danelaw shared a post to your timeline.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-14 10:42:00 UTC

photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/29177505_198471544083077_251193171677093084_n_198471544083077.jpg (flawless)(flawless)

Source date (UTC): 2018-03-14 10:20:00 UTC
(Video making the rounds. Guy makes selfie doing some girl. Cut to her father making vido of two shotgun rounds to the head followed by a mag-dump with a pistol. I mean, the shotgun wedding, shotgun murder thing seems to work just fine. I was surprised he didn’t douse him with gasoline and light him on fire.)
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-13 19:49:00 UTC
WOMEN AND DEBATE IN SOCIAL MEDIA
(from elsewhere)
These groups simply improve one’s ability to debate, articulate one’s ideas, and identify the hollows in your undrestanding.
Men in particular debate (or argue) as a means of developing a framework without exposing themselves to the vulnerability of suggestion.
It is part of and parcel of being male – most of us find no … interest … in learning without the stimulation of some sort of competition – hence the decline in male school performance by the introduction of females who have the opposite incentives.
So for women in particular, a male dominated means of learning is … often unpleasant.
And for strong females, the rather shallow method of female communication with its overemphasis on conformity and non confrontation is too stultifying.
Libertarians are better company for the aspirational women as they bridge the gap between male and female sentiments for the simple reason that they care very little about hierarchy.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-13 15:20:00 UTC
There is a website somewhere plays the daily game of matching crimes to arrest photos. And it is that data we should find interesting. Not data that is constructed consciously or otherwise to produce an outcome. Lesson from Economics: never use intentionally constructed data.
Replying to @OppressorBot @jordanbpeterson
So when people are practicing pattern recognition from faces, what patterns are they observing? Well, Kin Selection, Class Selection, Personality Selection, and personal experience. People are very good at it, and you can nearly always judge a book by its cover if you can see it.
Replying to @OppressorBot @jordanbpeterson
They have much higher retention of traits than even we do, including everything from scent to body fat distribution to scale of genitalia and length of legs. And they have a low opinion of human nature. And very little respect for human life (by comparison).
East asians not only have verb based language rather than noun, and conformity(harmony) and non-imposition against the dominance hierarchy, but they failed to solve the problem of politics, and still practice face and continuous deception. It is very hard to compare us.
Um. this is far too long a conversation, but you are using too few axis of causality. East asians are a low trust people. We are not yet sure why they are low trust. But it is most likely because their first philosopher ( their SunTzu) advocated delay and deceive.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-13 14:25:00 UTC
I’m saying if you graph testosterone by class, major tribe(hundreds), SubRace (30 or so) and Races (3-4), that pedomorphic selection and testosterone coincide and so do facial features, with dimorphism varying between groups. ie: east asians lowest, africans highest.
The way to domesticate a human animal is no different from any other. Overtake its dominance hierarchy and cull impulsivity and aggression. This turns out to produce neotenic trait expression, prolongation of maturation, and general decline in testosterone (and many other things)
It’s pretty obvious. Some of us had to mature quickly in high disease gradients and some of us could afford to mature more slowly and produce fewer offspring in colder climates. Add prohibition on cousin marriage, the meat grinder of agrarianism/manorialism and underclass shrinks
It’s not so much that any group is superior to any other group so much as that some groups have been more successful at culling the underclasses. If you can get your median above 105 very good things start to happen. I assume in the future that number will continue to increase
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-13 13:59:00 UTC
Define ‘you’ “i”. There are a very finite number of properties of ‘you’ that differ from the properties of others.
As far as I know, you can only consist of a physical body living (surviving) in time, a set of memories that when stimulated by inputs produce consequence (changes) unique in time and space, and a set of others’ memories of your body and your behavior; and lastly the legal ‘you’ which refers to the set of records, obligations, and liabilities others cannot transfer to their exclusive control. This is the full spectrum of ‘you’ that has any meaning.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-13 13:39:00 UTC