Living in a house with other men, and hiring a housekeeper/cook is cheaper and more satisfying than living in a house with a woman that is less than a constant joy.
Thankfully, aside from being soft and smelling good, there are a lot of women to live with that are a constant joy. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-13 09:35:00 UTC
PROPERTARIANISM IN AUSSIE VERNACULAR
—-“The only POSSIBLE method for knowing truth is to understand history! Why? Its not f’ing possible to know the truth about the future. It hasn’t happened yet and we don’t have a time machine, yet. heh 🙂
Therefore. Anyone that claims to know truth and knows f all about history?… MUST start by making up or repeating lies they’ve believed.
And that makes it very bloody hard to “discover” truth. As possible sources of truth are slowly eliminated, one by one as you come across “believers”. And this is a f’ing massive problem.
Very few people ask why do you believe, what you believe?
And as the questions get knocked off by answers? You get closer to truth. Notice?!? You’re asking yourself! 😉
You’re not asking the Gossiper over the fence. You’re not asking the blokes down the pub.
Who convinced you to believe, what you believe, and what could their motivation be for your continuing belief, or their benefit? ;-)”—-Nick Heywood
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-13 09:19:00 UTC
ON MSG – MONOSODIUM GLUTAMATE
(worth repeating)
Now, you know, that ‘after lunch food coma’ is likely msg effecting you. That ravenous ‘this tastes good’ you get from snack, fast, and packaged foods, is almost certainly msg.
For some percentage of us, the after lunch food coma puts us to sleep for 6-24 hours and the ‘confused’ or ‘food coma’ reaction lasts for three or more days.
So, it affects all of us, but it affects all of us with different levels of intensity.
For me, msg makes me confused, sleepy, … and agitated, and it doesn’t wear off for three to five days.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/10150578864161103/
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-13 09:10:00 UTC
(by Bill Joslin )
—“One consideration. With interspecies cooperation, for example, badgers and coyote are hunting groundhogs together, the overall chance of killing game increases for both over the long term. This gives the incentive to tolerate a competitor. The notion of cooperation born of outgroup warfare presupposes an outgroup which is already cooperating.
The distinction between non-cooperative social species (deer, apes, monkeys) and cooperative social species rests with resource gathering.
Non-cooperative social species do not cooperate in resource gathering. Each provides for themselves but do so in a proximity to others. This reduces the chance of death due to predation (run faster than your mate). This fits your above model – defense against outgroup threats.
Cooperative social species work collectively to gather resources with a rudimentary division of labor (Wolves hunting in a pack – rely on each other for survival – a deeper form of cooperation). In these cases pack size increases and decreases in proportion to the success of the pack. Caloric access would stand as a bigger driver.
Familial structure and development of reason may provide some indication as to which applies to humans. Cooperative social species tend to have more developed “mind reading” than non-cooperative, and will seek out help from another. Social structure forms around the family structure as a single unit (mother, father, juvenile offspring, young offspring) oppose to harems.
This suggests to me that human lines were different than current primates in that we may have been predators (cooperative social animals) while they remain predominate scavengers with occasional hunting.
One other which comes to mind is interspecies cooperation, for example, coyotes and badgers hunting ground hogs (badgers are good at digging but not chasing escaped ground hogs – coyotes are better at chasing than digging.) Resource gathering and collective gains over the long run affords an incentive for each to tolerate the proximity of a “competitor” (tolerate each other) to the extent that they cooperate.
There seem to be two different incentive sets which result in cooperation as a survival strategy.
The later (cooperative social species) I think has a direct and stronger incentives to develop cooperative strategies, whereas the former tends to demonstrate looser ingroup bonds (loose half your troop to defection after a lost battle with a competitor).
These differing strategies may have converged in humans.”—
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-12 20:40:00 UTC
Q&A: CURT! HEY. WTF WITH ALL THE ‘-ISMS’???!
(updated with additional detail)
—“Curt, I love ya, but why do you add “-ism” to the end of every fucking word?”—-Jací Eugènè Esteban
OK – GREAT QUESTION – SO I WILL ANSWER IT.
WHAT’S AN ‘-ISM’?
—“-ism Suffix. A distinctive practice, system, ideology, or philosophy”—
WHAT DO THOSE WORDS MEAN?
—“An ideology functions, like literature, to inspire individuals to action under democracy. A philosophy provides methods of decidability in order to achieve a desired state of affairs. A formal logic provides language for the testing (criticism) of relations for internal consistency (falsification). A science provides a formal process and instrumentation for the elimination of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.”— Curt Doolittle, The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine.
CAN YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC?
Yes, a set of related terms, properties, methods, and arguments, in support of a judgmental, ideological, philosophical, logical, or scientific end.
WELL MAYBE I STILL DON’T UNDERSTAND?
Using ‘ism’ is a shortcut for a bundle of related ideas. Once you start collecting these ideologies, philosophies, logics, and sciences – just like in any profession – you start to categorize them by common names. Some of them refer to authors “Darwinian, Darwinism”, or “Aristotelianism”, and some of them by movement “libertarianism, progressivism”, some of them by method “empiricism, relativism”, and some of them by judgements “realism”, ‘naturalism”, “deism”..
So *names, movements, methods, and judgements* largely (I’m sure that there are others.) You can think of them as recipes for baking a complex ideas by different means: *recipes for organizing ideas for the purpose of organizing people in the furtherance of achieving ends*.
Or in simple terms, ‘ism’ means “thinking like those guys who think that way.” Rothbardianism = ‘thinking like rothbard thinks’. Aryanism = Thinking like the Aryan expansionists in europe thought: what we call “Aristocratic Egalitarianism”, or “Sovereign Heroism”. Where aristocratic egalitarianism refers to the fact that rule was maintained by a natural military aristocracy open to all who could accumulate the capital and fight with the rest. And where Sovereign Heroism refers to the judgements that these people made: they chose sovereignty(negativa) and heroism(positiva) as their balance of judgements (innovation). Just as the asians chose ying and yang for stable balance (stasis) as their balance of judgements.
HOW DO I LEARN THEM ALL?
Well, you know, you can just use wikipedia. lol.
And yes I understand its frustrating for you. But I am working in the realm of a great synthesis of ideas, across many fields, and across many cultures, and across many eras. I lose people in the weeds already. Can you imagine if I went into detail when I was talking about each movement and way of thinking? omg. There is no way to leave all those breadcrumb trails. It’s just impossible.
So this is just ‘how it’s done’. It”s how professionals in philosophy talk about ‘ways of thinking’. The fact that you can graduate high school without knowing intellectual history is actually kind of horrifying to me – because it didn’t used to be that way.
If you want something more arcane than intellectual history try medicine. or the absurd gyrations that software people go through to label different ‘ways of thinking’ about problems. Or the hell=hole of terminology: social pseudoscience, freudian pseudoscience, marxist pseudoscience, … I mean. That’s before we even talk about Theology and literary movements. omg.
So that’s why: It’s shortcut for bundles of ideas used by people, movements, eras, or methods.
Thanks for asking.
I get a lot of flack for this.
And no, I am not gonna be a Molyneux that is gonna make it easy for you.. He’s great at what he does. But that’s not what I do.
OK?
Cool. 🙂
Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-12 20:35:00 UTC
–“If you act like rule of law doesn’t exist, then let me oblige you.”—Josh Jeppson
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-12 20:32:00 UTC
—-“Testimonialism as the plasma state of Truthfullness”—Bill Joslin
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-12 20:30:00 UTC
DO WE HAVE ENOUGH WITH PETERSON AND DOOLITTLE?
So really, it’s one thing to argue via positivia (myth and literature) like Peterson (who is amazing). It’s another to argue via negativa (law). As Josh has said – the law isn’t really inspiring. The power of it is. The moral license of it is. But it isn’t ‘spiritual’ in the sense that it invokes that feeling we call spirituality (the pack response) – that abandonment of reason and reliance on intuition – where we can ‘feel’ our way through with joy what we must think our way through with reason.
But you can’t prevent existential bads with positiva, any more than you can create spiritual goods with negativa.
If we took a sort of Janus Faced approach, (Arrows and Olive Branches) we find the ‘balance’ between positive and negative.
I wonder if I could get this all thru to him? He has so many pieces but he is, at heart a literary rather than analytic thinker.
( Dr Jordan B Peterson, Professor of Psychology )
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-12 19:35:00 UTC
OUR GUYS ARE ALREADY BETTER THAN THEIR GUYS
“Our guys” are already better than “their guys”. In one or two years, our guys will be ‘the guys’. We will have done it. 🙂
It is expensive to learn what we do. it is expensive to apply it. But it is a devastating weapon against the enemy.
The war of ideas
The war of propaganda
The war of violence
A debate between propertarians and any other political faction will be a slaughter.
AND THERE ARE A WHOLE BUNCH OF YOU THAT KNEW WE WOULD DO IT.
DO YOU SEE WHAT WE HAVE DONE? 😉
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-12 17:32:00 UTC
CONSERVATIVES, LIBERTARIANS, ANCAPS, NRX, ALT-RIGHT, … JUST ASK QUESTIONS. OK?
I know. I know. Some of you are overconfident evangelicals for your cause. But please, save us both the tedium and ask questions if you don’t understand what I (we) talk about. Please don’t think you’re going to put together a witty argument. A cunning refutation. A creative deceit. It won’t happen. It just won’t. I’ve been working on this problem for a very long time now. And you just are wasting both our time.
There is a reason everyone seems to progress from classical liberal or conservative, to libertarian, to ancap, to nrx, to alt-right to propertarianism.
So on your journey, your fellow travelers ask that you impose the lowest cost upon us. Just ask questions. “We argue this, you argue that, why do you think you’re right?” is a really good way of asking questions.
Hoppe is no dummy. Rothbard was no dummy. Mises was no dummy. Hayek and Popper were not dummies. If some of these people were fooled by some of the rhetoric, you shouldn’t feel bad for being fooled by it either.
We didn’t have a sufficient understanding of what we call the scientific method until very recently. We didn’t have an undrestanding of computability until very recently. We didn’t have an understanding of truth until recently. So these people were prisoners of their eras. We are the beneficiaries of an additional generation or two.
Propertarianism is a profoundly thorough system of philosophy(decidability) as far as the negative(decidability) is concerned – I rely on literature for the positive(ideation and inspiration). I don’t do all that much inspiration. I just do true and false.
If you want liberty in fact, rather than some semblance of liberty by permission there is only one way to create it: Sovereignty+Heroism -> Natural Law -> Markets In Everything => Conditions of Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom and Subsidy.
That’s how it is. Either you can create a polity of self sustaining non-parasitic peoples in a territory that can serve as a market, and one that other peoples will tolerate, or you won’t. You can’t do it by low trust ethics. it’s not complicated.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-12 17:22:00 UTC