THE PURPOSE OF RELIGION
—The purpose of all religion is the intentional, organized, disciplined, ritualized institutionalized, violation of Natural Law.—
(I wonder how much trouble I’m going to get into with that one?)
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-06 10:57:00 UTC
Men are demonstrably better to one another than women are to one another. Men are demonstrably better to women than men are to men. Women are demonstrably better to their children than to men or women.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-06 09:27:00 UTC
POSTMODERNISM: KILL THE INCOME STREAM AND KILL THE IDEA
(defund the left)
1) The Easy Part.
– End Copyright – Convert to Creative Commons.
– Restore fighting – (Duel) restore retaliation on gossip, and ridicule
– Defamation – restore all defamation, including speculation.
– Truthfulness – defense of informational commons.
– University bears Responsibility for Student Loans
This will destroy the left’s ability to exist. Because the left requires parasitism and lying to persist.
2) Providing Incentive for People to Vote for it.
– Interest on Fiat Credit – Eliminate consumer interest. Convert all interest to state revenue.
3) Then the difficult part:
Direct Democracy – Proportional or Not. Require Majority of Genders, Majority of Tribes. As families with one vote we had common interests the differences between which were resolved external to government: in the family. As individuals we must restore the un-commonality of interests by increasing the houses for genders and tribes, as we split the interests of classes and regions.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-06 07:03:00 UTC
( Thinking about how the universe, and the structure of the universe isn’t something ‘out there’ bigger than we are and imperceptible to us, or here, in our solids, liquids, gasses, plasmas and spaces that is perceptible to us. And that it’s just a vast web of these very small geometric phenomenon that through attraction and resistance create spaces of different sizes with different fields, and that its all winking and twinking and twirling and spinning and that …. and I’t just. I just dont’ wanna go there. I mean, although, the fact that everything is connected by fields within fields, is sort of beautiful and in some way I feel the universe is less alien, that does not make me feel any better given how hostile the universe is to us, and how hard we must work to make spaces for ourselves, that we can survive within. And our rather short experience as creatures of reason, capable of transforming this world, is amounts to nothing in the tempo of the universe.)
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-05 11:59:00 UTC
TRUTHFUL ARGUMENT WITH FICTIONALISTS
“If we are engaging in negotiation or argument, we want to know if we can cooperate with you. We prefer to cooperate with you only because cooperation in the long term is more rewarding than predation in the short term. The strategy of my people is maneuver: speed in adaptation. As such we practice Heroism, Sovereignty(Reciprocity), Contract, and Testimonial Truth. And because Maneuver using Heroism, Sovereignty, Contract, and Testimonial truth are the most expensive method of cooperation, it is only in our interest to cooperate with you if you can at least participate in Contract and Testimonial Truth. Otherwise, because of our use of Maneuver, by the high costs of Sovereignty, Contract, and Testimonial Truth, it is preferable to defeat you, kill or enslave, and take from you that which we cannot obtain by cooperation under contract and testimonial truth, rather than pay the unnecessary cost of your violation of contract, and your use of deceit. And so in negotiation and argument, if you cannot practice full reciprocity of sovereignty, and constrain yourself to that which you can testify to, then you are incapable of contract for reciprocal sovereign cooperation. And as such we need not discourse, only fight. So no, when you call upon your gods, you cannot testify to them because you cannot demonstrate them, only lie about them. While, if I call upon reason, I can demonstrate reason, and demonstrate all that follows from my reason, or I would not enter it into sovereign, reciprocal, discourse, negotiation, and debate. So if you rely upon that which you cannot demonstrate, then you cannot testify to it, and therefore you are incapable of truth, and therefore incapable of contract, and for these reasons we must, given no other choice, fight, defeat, kill or enslave, and take from you what we cannot obtain by cooperation.”
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-05 08:43:00 UTC
Tyler Cowen on Germany and Political Innovation,
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-31 10:52:00 UTC
—“Curt: Yeah… Do you ever go outside?”—
Yes. One hour. Every day. But they keep my straight jacket on so I don’t hurt them.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-31 00:03:00 UTC
SOME ‘ANARCHO PROPERTARIANISM’ AND FREE RIDING ON THE BRAND.
Well, um.
Some Questions:
1) How does anarcho-propertarianism differ from Hoppe’s anarcho capitalism? Hoppe and rothbard use anarcho capitalism. The Propertarians disagree with Hoppe and define the scope of property concretely. Yet I see nothing in your discourse that differs from Anarcho Capitalism.
2) Define property, since this is the test of whether someone has an understanding of what he speaks. The failure of the ancap movement over the past 40 years has been because of the inability to define the scope of property, and the fact that the majority runs away from the philosophy once it is defined.
3) What will people use violence and fight over that is not covered by your definition of property? Given what people will fight over, wont people generate demand for an ‘insurer’ or what we call a ‘state’ in order to insure that which they will fight for, if it is not covered by your definition of property?
4) Here are some good examples:
a – Lets take slander, libel, or ridicule for example.
b – Lets take blackmail for example.
c – Lets take interference in a marriage for example.
People all over the world kill over these matters. So are they addressed by your definition of property?
5) Now if given a choice between living in a social democracy and living in your ideal polity, why would people rationally choose to live there versus the social democracy? Why don’t all sorts of libertarians move to remote regions and form new societies there? What has happened to all groups that have tried to live by anarcho capitalist ethics or law in the past? Where are they today? What have the more regulated societies done to those polities that HAVE tried to enact ancap-style lifestyles? Why? Who actually moved there other than criminals?
Now, if you can’t answer these questions, or you answer them dishonestly, or incompetently, then how can you make a claim to hold to a philosophy that is possible rather than a cult or religion that is not possible?
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-30 22:28:00 UTC
( damn. i wish solving some of these problems didn’t take me so long, but once I’ve solved them it always seems to have been worthwhile. It’s just read, question, read more, try and argument, and repeat until you can do it. Then do it over and over again until you can do it clearly. Then do it over and over again until you can make some sort of aphorism out of it. )
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-30 22:11:00 UTC
( Someone asked me to answer a question last night and I have lost it. So please PM me and remind me if you see this. )
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-30 22:10:00 UTC