Source: Facebook

  • Great migrations cause the death of higher civilizations. End the great migratio

    Great migrations cause the death of higher civilizations. End the great migrations. Preserve our civilizations.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-26 11:34:00 UTC

  • Struggling with Eli’s suggestion that we should (I should) be less accommodating

    Struggling with Eli’s suggestion that we should (I should) be less accommodating (kind, considerate) of those with less agency, because they will always, to some degree, be the enemy.

    My view is, that in the search for, and production of, fellow sovereigns, there is no order other than Natural Law’s markets-in-everything, that will allow us to filter (cull), breed (domesticate), train (educate), test (through markets), identify candidates (sovereigns), evolve the animals (human or otherwise), accumulate (capital in all its forms) and defeat the universe (transcend), and do so at a profit (tax, technology, competitive utility).

    I do not think that this argument is defeatable without at the same time saying we lack the ability and therefore agency to possess sovereignty, and transcend.

    So this then is my criticism of my fellows who desire aristocracy. Either we are able or unable – testably – to do such a thing.

    They have, in one century, demonstrated their folly – and the severe consequences for our civilization, our kin, our nations, our race. They have ignored that migrations cause ignorance, dark ages, civilization-cide, and genocide. And they ignore that only western civilization has dragged man out of ignorance, poverty, starvation, disease, and tyranny. And we have failed to be honest in stating that the method was through the forcible domestication of man and woman like we domesticated plants and animals before them.

    Pandora is the root of all evils. It is the violence of men to suppress her and her impulses, men and their impulses, that produces civilization and transcendence.

    We let pandora free. Time again to box her. Along with the host of lies.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-26 11:26:00 UTC

  • “Cooperation is preferable when profitable. Otherwise it is cuckoldry”—Micah P

    —“Cooperation is preferable when profitable. Otherwise it is cuckoldry”—Micah Pezdirtz


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-26 09:13:00 UTC

  • I think I get it. Its easier to have a truthful discussion about man with german

    I think I get it. Its easier to have a truthful discussion about man with germans, and easier to have a legal discussion with americans. But but americans are too utopian about man to talk truthfully about man, and germans to utopian about government to talk truthfully about law.

    “The British are too polite to be honest, and the Germans are too honest to be polite.”– h/t: RainHard Pitschke


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-26 08:26:00 UTC

  • Violence has and always will provide decidability. We have tried so desperately

    Violence has and always will provide decidability. We have tried so desperately to accommodate women in government – itself an act of violence – despite their zero value in the exercise of violence.

    Accommodating women’s weakness is not the same as changing the predominance of violence whatsoever. Accommodating the weak, the solipsistic, and the psychotic character of women has been a luxury good. But empirically speaking it has caused the suicide of our civilization, and its vulnerability to invasion, propaganda, and deceit.

    Women have but one power: disapproval. And that power exists only so long as men will tolerate it. And men will tolerate it only so long as it is useful.

    Women have merely replaced the truth of violence, with lying about it in all walks of life.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-26 08:07:00 UTC

  • I have been meaning to ask what you think about MMT for some time now. So, have

    —I have been meaning to ask what you think about MMT for some time now. So, have you heard of MMT before and what do you think?—

    Curt Doolittle

    What I’ve stated in the previous few posts is pure Keynesianism, however, I used it in the New Keynesian model, directed at growth rather than just employment.

    The criticism we should levy is of Fiat Money that in issuing these stocks (fiat money) the interest is privatized rather than retained as one of the primary income sources of the state.

    This was an intention, in the original design, as fear that the state would destroy the economy as it has in the past if legislation made possible the runaway issuance of currency.

    MMT makes claims I disagree with, and creates hazards I disagree with. In particular, that no government can go bankrupt – which while LEGALLY true – doesn’t mean it’s PRACTICALLY true, as we have seen many sovereign nations with fiat money produce runaway inflation and in the case of venezuela at present, starvation.

    The problem with fiat money is lack of rule of law. In other words, the constitution needs to forbid the state from arbitrary (discretionary) use of money.

    In some sense, one of the principle problems of 21st century economics has been to attempt to discover some ‘target’ (measurement) that would allow us to reduce the issuance of money to rule of law (a formula) and place it into the constitution, thereby removing discretion over its use.

    In some sense, this is an example of the the conversion by the (((socialists))) from rule of law (non-discretionary rule) to majority rule (discretionary rule): it is even harder to trust a government with fiat money than it was when first issued.

    The solution isn’t very difficult. There are no provisions in the constitution against even suggesting certain acts as there were for treason. And it is this certainty of punishment alone that will prevent this kind of behavior in the market for information, legislation and regulation.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-26 08:00:00 UTC

  • “I’m generally right – only because I know more ways to be wrong.” — Eli Harma

    —“I’m generally right – only because I know more ways to be wrong.” — Eli Harman


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 16:31:00 UTC

  • Q&A: —“Would you mind detailing the hard currency problem? I still can’t get m

    Q&A: —“Would you mind detailing the hard currency problem? I still can’t get my head around why a fixed amount of currency is problematic.”— Bob Moran

    Curt Doolittle

    Lets say that the only currency you have to work with is gold and silver coin. Now, if, as a country, you are a net exporter, you will accumulate coins in exchange for your exports. But if you are a net importer (you’re wealthy) you will low on coins, the cost of coins will increase, and therefore the cost of imported goods will increase, and your economy will stall. Those are two extremes. In the middle, coins circulate and credit circulates, and consumption slows because prices increase, simply because the cost of coins themselves – that are necessary for trade – increases. This continues until some niche markets resort to barter. Now barter is a high risk, because it isn’t liquid like money (coin) is.

    Instead of coin, all governments slowly moved to ‘shares’. Paper money is not money per se (a commodity, or a token exchangeable for a commodity), but a share in the economy of the issuer. And like commercial shares, its dilutable. So when the price of money increases (interest rates), the government issues more shares to maintain a stable price of money (shares), so that there is no artificial shortage of money (money substitute: shares) so that productivity isn’t going to pay for the scarcity of money, and continues to pay for consumption and trade, and the economy continues.

    Governments (federal reserves, central banks, etc) function for the simple purpose of ensuring relative price stability of money, by maintaining a money supply at levels that hold it steady.

    The problem is, governments, once they have this power, spend money they don’t and can’t have, which creates a constant rate of inflation as well. Inflation destroys prices and savings and assets.

    The only way to preserve savings then, is to invest in things that appreciate over time (land, stocks, etc) but in general it is nearly impossible to stay ahead of the rate of inflation. so you must work constantly to prevent your money from evaporating.

    This creates the treadmill that we live under.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 15:44:00 UTC

  • MY POSITION ON THE SOLUTION TO HEALTH CARE Dick, (regarding the republican failu

    MY POSITION ON THE SOLUTION TO HEALTH CARE

    Dick, (regarding the republican failure to reform healthcare)

    Are you speaking truthfully, with bias, with wishful thinking, or propagandizing (fictionalizing)?

    1 – they (mainstream republicans) thought they could replace it in name only.

    2 – the right libertarians and conservatives that were elected to repeal it completely put together enough votes to block it.

    3 – Now it will fail economically, and they will allow it to fail, and the right and the mainstream republicans will say ‘told you so’ – and they will solidify the movement of the middle class to the republican party permanently.

    4 – The left will (as they intended originally) to propose full nationalization upon failure.

    5 – The right will propose a tiered program (extending the two tiered system we have today: medicare and private.)

    6 – the uninformed (unaligned) voter will provide marginal voting power to one party or another depending upon the timing.

    7 – the outcome then is random, dependent upon the economic mood of the country.

    My opinion remains, and has been, to keep and expand the subsidy (medicare, medicaid) system for the poor, cover catastrophic health problems fully (for the lower middle and middl) and leave market plans available for the upper middle and upper classes. This three tiered system allows the governments (states) to negotiate price controls for the poor, the middle class to obtain insurance at reasonable prices by eliminating the high cost outliers, and the upper classes to fund research and development as they always have.

    This is, I am fairly certain, the optimum system that preserves the benefits of the market on one hand, the control of prices across that market on the other, and the ability to create demand for innovative (risky, expensive) services that respond to market demands.

    Cheers.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 15:05:00 UTC

  • IS DOOLITTLE A RUSSIAN SHILL? “Doolittle is a shill for Putin” — Eli Harman My

    IS DOOLITTLE A RUSSIAN SHILL?

    “Doolittle is a shill for Putin” — Eli Harman

    My posts on Ukraine and Russia

    https://propertarianism.com/category/off-topic/russia-and-ukraine/

    My Posts on Putin and Russia

    https://propertarianism.com/?s=Putin+Russia

    My Video on Circumpolar Civilization (inspired by Gorbachev)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n42R6coy5Dk

    My position is pretty clear for anyone doing the research.

    And yes, I would rather live in Eastern Europe than western.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 14:49:00 UTC