Source: Facebook

  • TO ALL ON “THE OLD VS NEW MOLYNEUX” Stephan ( and all of us ) are moving to the

    TO ALL ON “THE OLD VS NEW MOLYNEUX”

    Stephan ( and all of us ) are moving to the right for the simple reason that the libertarian assertion that the nature of man is identical to the libertarian personality and our moral bias merely yearning to be free, is as false as is the progressive assertion that the nature of humans is altruistic (maternal).

    Like almost all in social science, it turns out that despite a century and a half of pseudoscience, the evidence is in: that man is rational and chooses between moral or immoral because of the incentives at the time. The conservatives were right. Man is merely rational/

    So conservatives work to limit incentives to the productive, and prohibit the unproductive. Immigration was just the last straw. But for the past sixty years the central issue has been whether the individual(progressive and libertine) or family (conservative) should be the central object of policy. And the jury is in: while law must be designed for the individual actor, policy must be designed for longer time preference: the family, tribe, and nation.

    When the industrial revolution hit us, the great wealth that was created, inspired us to the falsehood that we had transcended our limits and the limits of nature. But we had only moved the window of possibility to cover larger populations. That does not mean that there are no limits to production and consumption.

    THE CONSERVATIVE (ARISTOCRATIC) MODEL: MARKETS IN EVERYTHING

    – A market for goods and services (the Market)

    – A market for reproduction (Marriage)

    – A market for enfranchisement (Defense and Emergency)

    – A market for commons (one house of government per class conducting exchanges)

    – A market for polities (competing small states and voluntary exit)

    In other words, there are no free rides – especially on the cost of creating the norms and institutions that we call property rights that can exist only when insured by reciprocal defense. The market was not natural in any sense – the evidence is that the market was constructed by the suppression of violence. Accelerated by the suppression of fraud. And now requires the suppression of falsehood, so that we can suppress the government itself: conspiracy.

    Sorry, but the world is moving right. For good reason. Anything else is suicidal to family, tribe, nation, and race. The cosmopolitan era has ended. Its pseudoscience pseudo-rationalism and pseudo-moralism, and conflationary argument is over. Libertinism ended along with neoconservatism and socialism. The experiment failed. We are unequal. We are competitors. We compete through cooperating because it is the least-bad form of competition that produces the most beneficial externalities. And only markets in everything make a condition of liberty possible.

    Hayek was right. Liberty is the condition produced by the rigid identification and enforcement of natural, judge discovered, common law that evolves to prevent and resolve conflict and retaliation spirals so that we may maintain the disproportionate value of cooperating on production, despite the constant incentive to engage in murder, violence, harm, damage, theft, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by externality, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, conspiracy, rent seeking, monopoly seeking, statism, conversion-religion-disinformation, displacement-immigration, colonialism-conquest and war.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    PS: MORAL BIASES

    Moral overweigthing: Masculinism (islam)

    Moral balance: conservative bias (paterna/eugenicl)

    Moral bias: libertarian (brother/partner/ally)

    Moral blindness: progressive (maternal)

    Moral antagonist: Socialist, feminist, postmodernist, Libertine, Neocon – the weaponization of maternalism under democracy. (judaism)

    Just how it is. Conservatives are right.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-11 06:28:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-11 02:43:00 UTC

  • We cannot necessarily make ourselves smarter, so much as we can remove error, bi

    We cannot necessarily make ourselves smarter, so much as we can remove error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, framing, framing, overloading, propaganda, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and deceit from the informational commons; and to train (teach) generations both the tools of calculation (reasoning), tools of manipulation and examination (crafts), and the tools of cleansing (testimony), and defending the informational commons just as we defend the cooperative commons (institutions) and the material commons (physical capital).

    The information age appears to follow the monetary age. It just took me a long time to figure out how we would ‘govern’ one another when we ‘communicate’ with more than prices and exchange.

    The problem we have faced is that each leap in cooperation and information, is accompanied by a leap in deception to counter it.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-11 02:33:00 UTC

  • Selfishness is necessary for the collective processing of information by individ

    Selfishness is necessary for the collective processing of information by individual perception (data), and interpersonal cooperation (falsification: true/false)… neural networks do not just exist in our minds, but between us. The difference is we are calculatively capable of processing (experiencing) the information we produce in the division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy. But we are unable to experience the information of the collective other than through observation of the group’s persistence in an environment of group competition within a hostile universe.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-11 02:20:00 UTC

  • SEE, IT”S NOT JUST ME… SNOWDEN —“Snowden believes there should be “some form

    SEE, IT”S NOT JUST ME… SNOWDEN

    —“Snowden believes there should be “some form of liability for negligence in software architecture” like that which exists in the food industry.”—


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-11 01:54:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-11 01:47:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-10 20:59:00 UTC

  • The fact that the distributions of abilities in all tribal and racial groups var

    The fact that the distributions of abilities in all tribal and racial groups varies considerably does nothing to help us choose behavior. It is not as if the lower will agree to the demands of the higher or vice versa. However we can trade with each other and in this way cooperate. Yes it is probably true that the lower are more burdensome than the upper can compensate for. So there is a maximum difference in populations that can cooperate. Because at some point the difference is large enough that we can no longer find mutual beneficial exchanges. The only moral objective is to reduce the rates of reproduction of the lower end of the spectrum until the remainder of the tribe nation or race can cooperate with the higher end of the spectrum. The twentieth century has been an exercise in crippling the able in order to attempt to advance those who are unable. Whereas it would be preferable to create specific developmental programs that suit abilities rather than create falsehoods.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-10 10:06:00 UTC

  • NO. MORALITY IS OBJECTIVE. IT’S JUST PROSCRIPTIVE(negative) NOT PRESCRIPTIVE(pos

    NO. MORALITY IS OBJECTIVE. IT’S JUST PROSCRIPTIVE(negative) NOT PRESCRIPTIVE(positive).

    We make the mistake that norms are in fact moral when they may in fact not be. We call norms moral just like we call legislation law. But norms may or may not be decidably moral and legislation and regulation may or may not be decidably law.

    So positive normative moral pretenses, and negative objective moral prohibitions are very different things. We may not be able to say what is best but we can say what is worst. This is the purpose of all natural law: prohibition.

    We spend most of our energies trying to rally numbers to different causes, so that we obtain the discounts of may hands making light work for large numbers. But we may rally to any cause one or another. At every given time there is a market for causes to rally in favor of.

    However, when we say something is moral or immoral, it is not because of the positive ends it achieves, but because it is not a violation of moral limitations.

    When you say “my portfolio of reproductive interests consists of set X, and your productive portfolio consists of set Y”, that means only that we cannot impose a POSITIVE demand on either person. We can only impose a NEGATIVE limit on both, so that they must trade to obtain what it is that they wish.

    Evolutionary strategies are not equal but that does not mean that they are not compatible. They are compatible through compromise, not perfection. We seem to evolve toward nash equilibrium in everything we do. This serves evolution as well, since it shuts out the bottom.

    So it’s true that morality is objective and universal. the problem is that objective and universal morality simply LIMITS what we can demand from each other while preserving cooperation.

    It does not tell us what is good and we should do, only what is bad and we should not do.

    That leaves exchange open to choose what is good for all as long as it is bad for none.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-10 06:20:00 UTC

  • Choice of political ideology provides the best personality survey

    Choice of political ideology provides the best personality survey.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-10 04:17:00 UTC