Q: —Why is redistribution necessary?–
Because we don’t get people to respect property rights for free if they have no incentive to. Just like they doing get us to bear the burden of supporting them if we have no incentive to. So trading behavior for money is just an exchagne.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 07:31:00 UTC
Q&A: “CURT: DOES EUGENIC REPRODUCTION PLACE TOO MUCH POWER IN THE HANDS OF GOVERNMENT?”
Great question, let’s take another example:
Economists argue one group is correct or incorrect, but this is false framing of the discipline. The discipline of economics can be broken into three schools that describe a degree of discretion.
The austrian(aristocratic/ conservative) school pursues social science: the means by which we improve (reduce the frictions) of cooperation, without interfering in (lying) the information system we call the economy.
The Chicago(classical liberal / libertarian) school pursues rule of law: we can interfere as long as those engaged in planning understand the rules under which we will interfere, and that they are non discretionary, and non-arbitrary, formulae. This achieves the desired result of compensating for ‘stuck’ patterns of sustainable specialization and trade, but does so ‘truthfully’ and ‘transparently’ and ‘predictably’.
The saltwater(left/social democratic) school seeks the maximum interference (lying) that we can perform that will produce the maximum amount of consumption, under the assumption that we can repair externalities using the same tools at a later date, and that the benefits of discretionary rule to those who engage in planning is sufficient to compensate for their increased risk and hardship.
The same is true for eugenic policies. We cannot do much under the non-interference of social science except attempt to educate others on the consequences of reproduction – yet they are the most impulsive and least open to education. We can construct rule of law under which we pay people subsidies for single children, and anyone can prosecute anyone on behalf of the commons, if it’s violated, and people will be involuntarily sterilized, lose their subsidies, and be sent to the desert to live in unpleasant communes (slums) for their crimes. If sterilization is legal and subsidy is highest for non-child bearing women, and lower for child bearing women, and non-existent and accompanies by punishment for multiple childbearing women, then this is merely rule of law. There is no government intervention here other than the courts.
I think the opposite is true, is that we must expand rule of law and eliminate government discretion. Not just in economics, but throughout the production of commons. Markets not government. Rule of law, not discretion.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 07:28:00 UTC
Q&A: —How do we shift the Overton window to the right so that we can talk about our ideas in public and on campus again?—
Moral men need a reason to demand change under the threat of violence.
We need to give them:
1) a set of demands to alter the status quo.
2) a plan of transition
3) a means of rebellion I”m working on it.
There is no alternative to violence. Just get others to grow a pair.
Because we’re going to have a revolution. And the best revolution is one where the enemy is so certain of defeat that they come to the table to compromise.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy or Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 07:11:00 UTC
Q&A: HOW DO YOU PROPOSE WE RESTORE EUGENICS?
—You wrote earlier about the differences in races being, in part, a difficulty for certain peoples to cull the lower classes. Would you be in favour of an organized plan of eugenics in order to correct this?—
I advocate that we are not conducting a trade with the lower classes, and harming our civilization and mankind.
They have nothing to trade in the market, and we do not permit or assist them in exit, yet we make the pay the high behavioral costs of observing private and public property rights. So I advocate we pay them rather than demand payment for nothing in return. I have no problem paying people for demonstrating normative behaviors, and perhaps participating in the maintenance of the commons. And restricting to one child and no immigration below graduate level education is sufficient within just a few generations to hollow out the lower classes. Especially if we literally pay educated women in above 106 to have children. Demographics produce deterministic results. We aren’t equal. And worse, the people at the bottom are ‘worse’ or all of us than the people at the top are ‘good’ for all of us.
This is just true. Enough lies. We’ve not completely domesticated the planet. In fact, we’ve only domesticated a small piece of it, and we’re reducing that three-thousand year effort every day.
But we will have to use direct violence, rather than indirect reproductive violence to negotiate that exchange.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 07:07:00 UTC
Q&A: TWO QUESTIONS: OPERATIONALISM, AND NICK LAND.
First, I don’t use the term ‘verifiable’ because that implies the fallacy of justificationism.
For a general rule to exist, and be non-false, we attempt to demonstrate determinism ( regularity, consistency ) of that general rule in every *dimension*:
categorical consistency, internal consistency, external consistency, moral consistency, scope consistency(limits, full accounting, and parsimony).
So in testing consistency (regularity, determinism), we ask the language is operationally descriptive and the process and results repeatable. We demonstrate regularity under some number of conditions.
When we use operational language we demonstrate that we have restricted ourselves to existentially possible statements, and therefore constructed a ‘proof’ (test) of existential possibility. Now, a proof is not synonymous with a truth. It is merely evidence of possibility. Whereas if we cannot construct an operational proof, either the claim is false, or we do not know enough to claim it may be true.
TWO: NICK LAND
I am an analytic philosopher(science/proofs), and Nick is a Continental(meaning/literature) philosopher. I can probably translate any of his statements from literary to analytic if I work at it. But Nick’s writing verges on poetry, and while we probably agree on a lot, our frames are from two different worlds, and I am highly critical of the continental method in general. It is too hard to truth test continental statements and so I would prefer we spoke in literary analogy as do novelists, documentary, proof construction as I do, or empirical analysis as most scientists do. And I don’t find the conflation of these various technologies to be very helpful.
Interestingly if you look at my work (anglo American legal empirical), Hoppe’s work (german Kantian rational), Moldbug’s work (Jewish critique), and Nick’s work (continental literary), you see that each of argues using our cultural frames of communication and argument.
I think that’s the interesting takeaway. That it’s just more evidence of my argument that each enlightenment culture tried to take its internal normative and institutional models and to propose them as universals, by more honest or more dishonest means.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 07:01:00 UTC
Q&A: CURT: WHAT’S YOUR CRITICISM OF KANT?
—Curt, Thanks for doing this. I would appreciate it if you could expand upon your criticism of Kant and what exactly he got wrong (and what he got right if anything). What is the problem with Critique of Pure Reason?—
I think anyone can read wikipedia and understand the philosophical criticisms of Kant. I think most of us understand that there are problems of internal consistency, and of obscurantism, that allow him to reason from vague generalizations to specifics, and then to claim that a priori and a posteriori are different classes of knowledge rahter than the apriori is but a special case of the universal epistemological sequence we mistakenly call empiricism but is reducible to the sequence: free association, question, hypothesis, theory, law.
Secondly, He did this in order to sew doubt. (which was Rand’s criticism). He wanted to sew doubt in order to attack empiricism.
thirdly, He was seeking a way to preserve germanic christianity in rational post-mystical terms as a means of AVOIDING the challenge posed by empiricism – and the vast literary nonsense that constittutes german (continental) philosophy is evidence of the damage he has done. And the use of his work by generations of pseudoscientists that followed him (Marx and Freud, Mises and Rothbard, The Frankfurt School, the posmodernists, and just about every other miscreant group of pseudo intellectuals) each took his verbal obscurantism as a method of overloading, suggestino, and deceit, to new heights, producing in the end, what we call, political correctness (outright lying), and the total destruction of social science under an ocean of postmodern pseudorational and pseudoscientific analogistic babble.
So is his categorical imperative incorrect? No. But he is the inventor of pseudorationalism as a substitute for mysticism. As such it is his TECHNIQUE that is nothing but an enormous justificationary network designed to preserve church, monarchy, and state, order using pseudo-rational rather than mystical speech, out of fear that individual sovereignty and empirical analysis would threaten that order.
Kant was a very bright man who created the rhetorical equivalent of nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction. And while the authors of the bomb rependted, and so have their followers, kant and his followers revel in the ongoing damage he has done.
If you read the European Right, the reason they fail is they are stuck in kant’s restatement of christianity – still servants of nonsense, appealing to emotion using the pretense of reason, rather than appealing to reason regardless of emotional response.
Because that’s what science means: cleansed of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 06:48:00 UTC
Q&A: CURT: CAN WE SHAPE CAPITALISM OR IS IT JUST DEMOGRAPHICS?
—Do you think that national culture can shape capitalism to be an effective force without the downward shift of consumer choice tending toward mass culture, and government corruption? Or does it all come down to demographics?—
It’s just demographics and redistribution. Better demographics, more homogenous demographics greater redistribution lower personal consumption for the purpose of signaling.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 06:33:00 UTC
Q&A: A GENTLE EUGENICS?
–What is the gentlest way to restrain underclass reproduction?–
The gentlest way to restrain underclass reproduction is to be honest about it, transfer from services to direct redistribution, and to make redistribution contingent on single child reproduction, and offer free sterilization after the fist birth, and require sterilization of those with severe histories in the family (we have studies on this it’s pretty obvious stuff).
And secondly to limit immigration to those with IQ’s 125 and above.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 06:30:00 UTC
Q&A: —“CURT: HOW DOES CONSERVATISM DIFFER FROM IDEOLOGY”—
Short answer? Empiricism vs Irrationalism
Curt said: —I’ll say that I use the language of natural law to construct institutions of natural law: exchange, rather than trying to argue that one position is superior to another in order to enforce a monopoly decision that I prefer over the monopoly decisions that others prefer—
.
Other said: —Would you say this is the distinction between ideology and time-tested principle-based ideas like conservatism?—
Conservatism: the ancient paternal order of parenting a family, tribe, and nation, into competitive success against other families, tribes, and nations. In the European World this refers to Aristocratic Egalitarianism (access to rule), Manorialism (access to production and consumption), family (access to sex, care, and reproduction), Religion (access to education, representation, insurance, and celebration).
I tend to refer to the various conservatisms as class-movements within the aristocratic egalitarian system of cooperation, with the national socialists and 88’ers and such as the upper proletariat and lower working class(soldiery, labor, and demand), the traditionalists as the upper working class(nco’s, information and advocacy), the legalists as the middle class(officers, organization and choice), and the martial and judicial castes as the upper class (Monarchy, generals, force and limits).
And each of our houses the church, the commons, the nobility, and the monarchy still exist but lack separate houses of government for their leadership to coordinate our activities eliminated our ability to use the government to organize in our interests via a market, and instead forced us to work through publications and arguments alone – controlled by the opposition – outside of the government. In other words, by the use of single house democracy (equality) we eliminated both our market for exchanges, our method of decision making, and our organization of collective command and control. From this perspective, egalitarian democracy places the classes which under aristocracy were mutually interdependent, into chaos, and puts us into slavery of the media, academy, special interests, and the state monopoly bureaucracy.
Now, what does that have to do with your question? Well, it gives me a foundation upon which to answer it:
Ideology refers to a method by which you incite groups under democracy, to vote for a particular representative set of policies, and ideologies need not be categorically consistent, logically consistent, empirically consistent, morally consistent. And moreover, it is better if tehy are not, since consistent arguments are open to rational criticism while ideological arguments merely justify and agitate intuitionistic desires. Ideologies are a property of democracy.
A Philosophy refers to a set of categorically consistent, internally consistent, often externally correspondent at least in part, and very often morally consistent method of decision making at the personal (psychological), interpersonal (ethical), sociological (group), political (commons), and inter-political (group competitive) levels. And we can produce philosophical systems across all or just one of those levels.
By the term “A time-tested principle” I assume you mean and empirically demonstrable via evidence of survival as a means of group competition against other groups. And yes, that is aristocratic egalitarian empiricism in a nutshell. Why?
Well, we discovered truth because of our battle techniques (voluntary professional warrior caste) and the members of the military that must hold to plan and formation (oath), where military epistemology of military people is extremely unforgiving and therefore highly empirical, and lightly loaded, if not totally unloaded (which is what they try to teach you in basic training: giving unloaded information to superiors on command.)
Anyone willing to buy a share (fight), could join the corporation (military), and as a consequence, obtain property rights (sovereignty), and voting rights (permission to speak his mind), and judicial rights (right to settle disputes).
We evolved sovereignty(independence/individualism), debate, reason, logic, science, contract, natural law, independent judiciary, independent religion, independent government, as continuous extensions of the basic ethic of empirical decision making, truthful testimony, jury of peers, and voluntary contribution to commons. We say we invented the corporation but we had been practicing it since before recorded history.
A conservative (aristocratic egalitarian) is not against experimentation, but in favor of empiricism: “show me first”. (a) it must be productive and non-parasitic (meritocratic), (b) it must be exitable if it fails, and (c) it must be reversible (restitution). If your experiment survives real world testing then we may expand these tests to larger circles. Once they have been proven we will adopt them as conservative (empirical) fully tested values (science).
Conservatism has always been scientific.
The problem is, we started to lie. We started to lie first, with Christianity. We spread that lie widely. Then when we came to modernity, and to the end of Christianity’s control over the government, we lied again: we said that man had been oppressed by the nobility, rather than domesticated out of barbarism through the continuous process of meritocracy. We destroyed the market for cooperation between the classes, and enfranchised both women and competitors. Then the Cosmopolitans came along and exaggerated our lie, saying that nobility was always parasitic rather than productive through domestication, and that the underclasses should and could rule, and that such a rule would not be parasitic but fair.
So we are the victims of both western and Jewish lies. And the only way to restore our COMPATIBILITY versus competition is to use the organized application of violence to end all the lies and recreate a market for exchange, decisions, and command and control for all the classes.
This is probably far deeper an analysis than you were looking for but as thorough, it is one we can share with others for years to come. So thank you for asking it.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 06:27:00 UTC
Q&A: —“CURT: IS THERE ANY MORALITY BEYOND SELF INTEREST?”—
—“Do you believe that morality beyond self-interest is entirely false as a result?”—
I don’t believe in anything, because the term is archaic. I can state that it’s a strong truth candidate, because despite extremely exhaustive efforts by highly biased researchers, we cannot find a single instance of moral action that is not in itself selfish through kin selection.
Now, when we use the word ‘moral’ we must grasp that there is an objective morality in natural (necessary, consistent, and decidable), and normative morality (local group contracts for different sets of behaviors that produce group benefits from which individuals largely benefit), and individual morality (those subsets of moral choices I choose to follow and not). We conflate these two terms, just as we conflate law (natural law), legislation (contract or command), and regulation (arbitrary edict). But objective and normative, and individual morality are equivalent to natural law (true), legislation (contractual), and regulation (arbitrary choice).
When I write I use moral for objective morality of natural law, and norm for normative morality of local normative contract.
We can extend this basic principle from not only sentient cooperative groups, but to non-sentient groups, to non sentient individuals, to plants, to bacteria, to the natural elements that make up the physical world, and to our emerging understanding of the physical world: that we must fight entropy if we wish to survive.
So it is not only illogical to engage in self-destructive action, but it is physically impossible so to speak, as it would violate physical laws of the universe.
Now some creatures appear to do sacrificial things, but this is sacrificial only from the (fallacious) human perspective as individual pleasure-seekers. But from evolution and the physical world’s standpoint, once we have exhausted a BENEFICIAL reproductive role we are no longer valuable to the organism (the algorithm) as a whole. Thankfully humans are almost always beneficial to one another when they are alive and not harming one another. Even then, those who harm, may be benefitting the organism (algorithm) “man”.
Now when we say self-interest, selfishness that signals possible parasitism, or non-payment for commons is something all creatures that cooperate retaliate against. So there is a difference between COMPROMISE (rational self-interest) and ABSOLUTE (and therefore irrational) self-interest. What is rational for all of us is to preserve the incentive to cooperate, and to prevent providing incentive to retaliate, yet being defensive enough to discourage offense against us.
So in this sense, it is always rational to compromise with those with whom you are compatible, because compromise with those with whom you are compatible is in your self-interest.
There are no rules without limits. If we cannot state the limits of any general rule, we state a falsehood because we cannot state a truth. This is why the wise speak in teleological ethics (science/outcomes), the informed but inexperienced and deceitful speak in deontological ethics ( rationalism/rules ), the young, lacking knowlege and experience in virtues (analogy/imitations), and children in punishments and rewards (goods and bads).
I hope this provided the answer you sought.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy or Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 05:52:00 UTC