Um. Does Zizek ever actually say anything constructive or does he just expound upon everyone’s errors – albeit with humor?
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-13 14:29:00 UTC
Source: Facebook
-
“Curt, So the argument that ‘sentient beings’ or ‘moral actors’ do not qualify a
—“Curt, So the argument that ‘sentient beings’ or ‘moral actors’ do not qualify as “resources” can not stand up to simple deflation of the term. Human actors demonstrably have the ability to benefit and gain from the transformation and consumption of other human capital, in many cases without the need violent compulsion. The only means of insuring the principle that you yourself differ from ‘live stock’ is in reciprocal construction of the notion between those who can demonstrate the necessary agency.”— Nicholas Arthur Catton
(Well done.)
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-13 14:24:00 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-13 14:22:00 UTC
-
“If such a trajectory ends in the near destruction of the human species and the
—“If such a trajectory ends in the near destruction of the human species and the planet, what lessons should the survivors inherit? It seems you’re largely in agreement with many the historical/factual claims of left/feminist scholarship. You simply advocate the power and privilege they despise.”— Skye Stewart
(a) What trajectory? Markets in Everything?
(b) What have the other trajectories achieved? By civilization. Comparatively? What about the difference between the modern age, the middle christian age, and the ancient age? And how did we exit the christian age?
(c) Power and privilege? You mean, the power to prevent parasitism and require trade? The Power to PREVENT over-reproduction?
I don’t disagree with marxists or the feminists on fact so much as value and institutions. As far as I can tell it’s just an r/k argument over dysgenic expansion and regression or eugenic expansion and progress.
Certainly at present, all challenges to the human race are the product of over-reproduction of the sub 100’s.
I mean, it’s roughly mathematical: what population can consume continued increasing percentages of the energy capacity of the planet (using say, solar terms)?
Or said differently, how can we keep increasing individual consumption of energy while preserving the carrying capacity of the planet – especially given that we are in a ‘quiet period’ of astro-geological activity – and at what point do we reach equilibration (limits).
I’ll suggest that I’m not the first person to think this through, and that the number of that population is a lot closer to one billion than it is to ten billion – a fact that will become obvious with the next economic-generational cycle.
So whose strategy is more likely to end the world: the r-strategy of dysgenic reproduction of the k-strategy of eugenic reproduction? What problems do we currently face that are not problems of overpopulation? Why should we invest energy in more bodies (greater consumption) than in fewer bodies and greater innovation and production?
There is only one extant problem facing man: the ratio of rates of population to rates of depletion of energy reserves.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-13 14:17:00 UTC
-
“Living in harmony with nature is letting a drunk drive you home. Overthrowing n
—“Living in harmony with nature is letting a drunk drive you home. Overthrowing nature is like grabbing the wheel from the drunk and flipping the car for the fun of it. Mastering nature is like being the designated driver and getting the drunk home first before going on a joy ride on his gas.”—Anne Tripp
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-13 11:17:00 UTC
-
Who will give up the life of an urban(commons) social democracy for a rural (pri
Who will give up the life of an urban(commons) social democracy for a rural (private) anarchy? Who has that incentive? What will occur?
Are you saying manorialism (a market that is capable of being ruled by an individual who makes discretionary choice over the production of capital and institutional investments is best, as long as such an individual market produces sufficient returns to defend such a market.) (iow: a plantation or manor)
Are you saying a city state (a market that is capable of being run by a collection of individual owners of manors) who make discretionary choices over the production of commons? ( iow: a mall or market town).
Are you saying a monarchic territory containing at least one if not more urban(commons) markets, where manors (plantations) and oligarchies (corporations), are collectively defended and differences adjudicated by a judge/general of last resort? Where some commons are produced at the manor, city-market, or monarchic-territory level?
Are you saying an Empire containing many monarchic territories, that provide univorm laws between monarchies, resolve differences between monarchies, and provide defense of all monarchies, (or at least provide the best equipped and largest force) that prevents defectin of any monarchies to escape
As far as I know, these are only questions of scale of population, scale of productivity, scale of territory, and the discounted cost of pooling resources (Taxes) to pay for (a) consistent internal rules that allow the organization of patterns of sustainable specialization and trade, and (b) adjudication (including forcible) of conflicts between manors, city-markets, and regions; and (c) defense of all of the above – at a profound discount.
In general, life is cheaper the farther you get from the market. When you get to a borderland you can engage in ‘unpleasant’ activities in exchange for holding territory that no ‘better’ ruler can afford to or desires to administer. And by your occupying that territory in the name of that ‘better’ ruler, you are homesteading it on his behalf. And as such, others are denied access to that borderland without provoking your warfare, and thereby risking the loss of their territories as a consequence.
The best freedom of choice is available at the farthest distance from value. This is why people all compromise. Some borderland, some rural, some suburban, some urban ring (ghettos), and some urban core (Elites). Cities are plantations.
What is the difference between {empire, monarchy, city-state, manor, freeman, serf, slave, and barbarian}, AND {Federal government, state, urban city, rural town, middle class, working and laboring class, soldier and underclass?}
The difference is corporate decidability rather than private decidability. Yes. But that is only possible because the difference beneath that is discretionary rule (arbitrary law), not algorithmic rule (natural law).
When all men have universal standing in matters of the commons they cannot be ‘taxed’ for what they do not ‘use’. yet others who WANT to produce commons cannot be PREVENTED from producing them as long as they impose no cost on the investments of others.
However, no one can escape all costs.
Having failed to solve the problem of politics the libertarians threw the baby of the commons out with the bathwater of discretion.
Truth is only discovered through competition between the market and the law.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-13 11:08:00 UTC
-
Once you get over the need to be right, as if there is some shame attached to be
Once you get over the need to be right, as if there is some shame attached to being wrong, then it is much easier to think scientifically and testimonially. So make arguments as best you can, and keep refining them. But abandon them as soon as you find it necessary. There is no shame in being wrong. There is only shame in adhering to the wrong in spite of the evidence.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-13 09:56:00 UTC
-
The world is logical once you know its first causes. The world is no longer good
The world is logical once you know its first causes.
The world is no longer good or preferable once you know it’s first causes.
The reason the west outpaced the east is precisely because we did not live in harmony with the vicissitudes of nature, but sought always, like our gods, to overthrow gods and nature.
We did not start from the presumption of an existential eden.
We started from the presumption that we can create one regardless of nature and the gods.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-13 09:54:00 UTC
-
MORE ON VINDICATING THE BORDERLAND ARGUMENT Well you’re just redefining libertar
MORE ON VINDICATING THE BORDERLAND ARGUMENT
Well you’re just redefining libertarianism to suit yourself, without first eradicating abrahamic, rothbardian, libertarianism.
Why do you throw this nonsense around?
Free imperial cities were given special privilege to report directly to the empire rather than the local prince/whatever.
That’s all it meant. Escaping REGIONAL law, so that one was subject only to IMPERIAL(National) law. Why was this useful? Well, princes could not defend cities alone, cities COULD defend themselves, and the tax revenue was better collected by the central government.
Now I could go into WHY all these things are natural occurrences of the geography and rates of production, but I doubt that’s necessary.
In other words, europe was under constant settlement and resettlement after the romans destroyed celtic civilization and opened the land for germanic invasion from the north. but after the fall of rome we ended up with nothing constant raids by muslims in the south, and nothing but a borderland in the north, and the process of accumulating production, capital, trade, markets, evolved until three events: the The Hansa, the HRE, and their interruption by the Atlantic Trade. Then their restoration as what we see as ww1/2, and the defeat of the germanic civilization by the jewish/russian and christian/anglo
There are no borderlands. Those who desire liberty or sovereignty are vastly outnumbered, just as our warrior ancestors were outnumbered versus the much more developed and populous east.
How can you create a condition of liberty except thru sovereignty? And how can you create a condition of sovereignty in fact? You cannot do it without the multipliers of high trust commons. You cannot do it without some scale – by federation sure – but scale. You cannot do it without maintaining a population base larger than those who desire liberty and sovereignty. It’s not possible.
Ergo, the only way I can find to create a condition of liberty for those who are not in fact sovereign, despite our small numbers, is to TAKE territory, and HOLD it. And produce PRODUCTION that makes it possible to hold it.
Hunter gathering died. Farming has died. We are in an era of markets. The first market is the polity. And polities are like any business they must survive competition. And they must survive competition by providing a product that is productive enough to stay alive.
Liberty exists by permission. Sovereignty exists in fact. Sovereignty is the product of VIOLENCE. Liberty is the product of LAW made possible by Sovereignty, and the mandate of the sovereigns under threat of VIOLENCE.
There can exist no liberty movement that is not subervient to an aristocracy movement. Women and jews and gypsies can just continue their low level parasitism under any ruler. But if you want liberty you must have a sovereign to obtain it from. If you choose to be that sovereign, then you choose to rule. And to rule you must possess the violence necessary to preserve that rule.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-13 09:39:00 UTC
-
“PRIVATE PROPERY” IS A CLAIM NOT A PROOF. It’s hard to reply because private pro
“PRIVATE PROPERY” IS A CLAIM NOT A PROOF.
It’s hard to reply because private property is not a definition of a cause. Predation, parasitism, retaliation, and disincentive for cooperation and risk are a cause.
So, what is the operational definition (causal chain) of private property? Define private property. They can’t. Because then they have to explain how it’s possible. “Private property” like ‘principle’ is ‘god mode speech’. A declaration. An axiomatic command. But what brings private property into existence and why did we need to invent it?
Non aggression against what? Against private property? Well that tells us nothing if you can’t define private property, demonstrate how it comes into existence, and how it SURVIVES competition from those who don’t want private property. If you cant create a model but just claim a good, you’re just a simpleton, right? SO you can describe or command or imply an ideal but like heaven, if you can’t find a way to bring it into existence and have it survive competition, it can’t exist, right?
What I advocate can be described as ‘market fascism’. That is, markets in everything, and natural law that both forces markets in everything, and prohibits parasitism upon anything.
So now we can choose from preferential (positive) commons, good(positive) commons and necessary(negative) commons like defense.
So while you certainly cannot be compelled to pay for preferential commons (luxuries), you might have to pay for commons which you indirectly benefit from, and you must pay for commons that are necessary for your private property to exist.
There are no borderlands. There is no crusoe’s island. There are no ‘ghettos’ that are not paid for by even MORE expensive commons. So how will you obtain and hold territory of sufficient productive value that others will not take it from you either because you are weak, or because, given your weakness, you house parasites and pirates an those who live off markets with expensive commons but do not pay for them?
Principles are for children. Create a model so that you can’t use weasel words, ideals, and half truths that can’t survive competition.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-13 09:10:00 UTC