THE CIRCLE OF LITERATURE
Mythical Literature (supernormalism)
.. Narrative Literature (hypothetical normalism)
.. .. Historical Literature (normalism)
.. .. .. Biographical Literature
.. .. .. .. Legal Literature
.. .. .. .. .. Scientific Literature
.. .. .. .. Essay Literature (personal literature)
.. .. .. Philosophical Literature
.. .. Religious Literature (Supernatural authoritarianism)
.. Fantasy Literature (supernaturalism)
(loop)
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-20 07:13:00 UTC
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-19/a-look-at-the-ugly-side-of-getting-richhttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-19/a-look-at-the-ugly-side-of-getting-rich
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 17:48:00 UTC
It’s because you shot from the script not from storyboards, so your transitions suck. Script -> storyboards -> locations -> production -> shoots.
Want to improve your skills as a director? spend three years learning how to draw, and learn from the comic books. During that time build a library of clips so you see how to make various shots.
This is your inventory. locations, production, and actors are what cost you money.
Now. You might think you’re creative. Or talented. But you’re wrong. It’s all just details. And the best directors are better at using the inventory, planning all the details, so that when you want to shoot, you care mostly about what you can’t do ahead of time: coach the actors.
In the editing room, your goal is to manage the viewer’s emotions the entire time. If you got enough shots you can do that. If you didn’t you cant.
Yes and tat is why your low budget flick sucks. You didn’t get it to storyboard, or map story boards to shoots, and plan out all your production costs ahead oftime. And if you did, you couldn’t coach your actors.
And so you shot your script and your movie sucks. You have a set of two second to four second stills of your script. and it’s dead. emotionally dead.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 15:40:00 UTC
by Bob Moran
We’ve built societies where slavery is counter-productive (or at least much less efficient than the alternatives), but it doesn’t mean it’s never a valuable choice given some the circumstances. Just like high trust, the lack of slavery is part of our privileges.
And yet, we are getting guilt tripped for what we built for ourselves and to a certain extent given to others.
High trust: You’re mean because you don’t trust me like your own. –> Why don’t you have high trust societies? Why should we trust you?
Wealth: You’re mean because you don’t give me the same stuff as your own. –> Why are you poor?
Citizenship: You’re mean because you don’t give me the same rights as your own. –> Why are your laws retarded and corrupted?
Land/Conquest: You’re mean because you took land / you don’t give me land –> Why couldn’t you hold land? Why can’t you take it?
Slavery : You’re mean because you don’t (didn’t) treat me like your own. –> Did you prove we could? Did you enslave each other to be sold to outsiders? Did you lack the force to defend yourself?
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 14:10:00 UTC
(So it seems like my problem is allergies and that I’m not sleeping well or enough because they’re agitated. This is whats hurting the quality and volume of my work. Despite that. Did two short runs yesterday. felt great.)
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 13:36:00 UTC
https://propertarianism.com/reading-list/OUR DIGITAL LIBRARY – FOR YOU
The Link to our (extensive) library is on our Reading List Page.
https://propertarianism.com/reading-list/
The Library is much larger than the reading list.
If you want to read on ANY SUBJECT we have the books you want and all of them. We have worked to limit the list to only meaningful content. It’s fabulous.
Your education is just sitting there, completely curated, for your consumption.
Go a head. Get wisdom. It’s there. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 13:08:00 UTC
The True
The Possible
The Good
The Beautiful
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 12:27:00 UTC
—“Privilege is something any group will create for its members if they are able. I think we would do better to ask what’s wrong with groups that are unable, rather than tolerating lectures on account of we trust each other more than we trust them; when they evidently don’t even trust each other (because they would prefer to interact, or do business, or live among, us.)”— Eli Harman
If you, as an individual, find yourself benefitting from the stereotypes developed by your people, is it not ‘true’ and is it not ‘moral’? The more interesting question is why do others not benefit from the stereotypes developed by their people?
Trust, truth telling, and signals of trust and truth telling are very expensive investments a people must make. Why is it that some are more or less willing and able to make those investments and produce that stereotype?
Why should people pay high costs to test a stereotype that was paid for at such high cost? And why have you and yours failed to produce an equally valuable stereotype?
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 11:50:00 UTC
By Eli Harman
My argument against women’s suffrage depends on only 3 points.
1) Voting either directs violence, or is a substitute for it.
2) The preponderance of actual violence is supplied by men. And the preponderance of potential violence is *not supplied* by men.
3) Men and women vote differently, on average.
All three of these points are, I think, incontrovertible.
There is certainly much more which could be said on the matter. But this is all that actually needs to be said, to show that women’s suffrage is unstable, and necessarily ends in violence.
For democracy can never reconcile conflicting interests of priorities. It can only privilege some, at the expense of others. And the more women vote to advance their interests, or impose their priorities, at the expense of men’s, the more tension will build. And it can only build until it breaks, because it is men who are asked to supply the actual violence which carries the outcomes of elections into effect, or to refrain from potential violence to prevent the outcomes of elections from being carried into effect.
But we don’t have to do either.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 11:49:00 UTC
THE INFORMATION CONTENT OF VIOLENCE:
It’s an article of faith among many libertarians that violence, and particularly aggressive violence, is necessarily negative sum.
Prices contain information and markets broker them (in a subjective utility maximising way.) Violence only short circuits that, disrupts markets, destroy price signals, and makes everyone worse off.
But this is not correct.
In the first place, market transactions aren’t necessarily positive sum. If they are fraudulent or create negative externalities for those not party, they can be negative sum.
And in the second place, violence is itself a signal, and transmits information. A threat expresses a subjective evaluation just as an offer does in the marketplace. “Hey, don’t do that or we’re going to fight.”
And the initiation of hostilities demonstrates the authenticity of that information just as a payment does in the marketplace. One undertakes real cost, and real risk, in resorting to violence.
(In contrast, whining, and playing the victim DO NOT demonstrate the authenticity of grievances in the way that resorting to violence does, and so are liable and likely to prove negative sum, if indulged, just as theft is liable and likely to prove negative sum, in the marketplace, because it does not make a sufficient demonstration and exchange of value.)
Markets and prices on the one hand, and violence and threats on the other, are both necessary components to a stable, functional, and efficient society and economy. To suppress either wholly in favor of the other, would be to forego the benefits they offer, and to pervert incentives towards destructive outcomes.
No society which does either will be able to compete, long term, against one which makes a more sensible tradeoff between them, making best use of information supplied by both exchange and conflict.
Violence is the means of expressing the subjective evaluations not captured by price signals, which are as vast and varied as those which are.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 11:49:00 UTC