Source: Facebook

  • IS HOTNESS A SKILL? (humor) Just out of curiosity…. Oversing has a pretty elab

    IS HOTNESS A SKILL?

    (humor)

    Just out of curiosity….

    Oversing has a pretty elaborate skill system, including hard skills and soft skills, skill levels, and weights (how important they are to your organization).

    I was wondering if we could add ‘Hotness’ to the soft skills. And a list of say, five levels of hotness.

    Kirill says that our product is industry independent, and in strip clubs it’s a legitimate job qualification. Tati says it’s not legal. And that she was ‘recruited’ for an interesting marketing position – until they asked for a full body photo. So while it may be a qualification, it’s still not legal to put it in the application.

    I just think it’s a really good ‘easter egg’. But I kind of suspect that I will lose this debate here in the office.

    So what is your opinion?


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-29 11:45:00 UTC

  • (worth repeating) Islam vs Christianity (via Curt) 1) hatred is required / hatre

    (worth repeating)

    Islam vs Christianity (via Curt)

    1) hatred is required / hatred is prohibited

    2) punishment is required / punishment is prohibited

    3) lies are permissible / lies are not permissible

    4) dual ethics (us and them) / universal ethics (misguided children)

    5) respect a given / respect earned by actions.

    6) knowledge is fixed / knowledge evolves

    7) intolerance is required / intolerance is prohibited

    8) inbreeding is promoted / inbreeding is prohibited

    9) produces low trust societies / produces high trust societies

    10) produces ignorance and poverty / produces knowledge and prosperity

    A religion is what is practiced not what is preached.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-29 11:31:00 UTC

  • MONOPOLY THINKING IS ENDEMIC IN DEMOCRACY AND MONOTHEISM, BUT NOT IN POLYTHEISM

    MONOPOLY THINKING IS ENDEMIC IN DEMOCRACY AND MONOTHEISM, BUT NOT IN POLYTHEISM AND PROPERTARIANISM

    OMG you made me ‘get it’. Thank you. Awesome.

    I see class theory as a set of elites in each of four disciplines of only three of which produce political coercion:

    1) Violence(male conservative)/Law,

    2) Gossip(female progressive)/Speech

    3) Remuneration (male)/Trade,

    4) Transformation(male and female)/Production-Craftsmanship.

    With Transformation not producing elites other than scientists (who are weak influencers). And with some groups succeeding in combining more than one means of coercion in the same group of elites. (Priest/Kings for example).

    I see humans a negotiators for their part of the spectrum of the reproductive division of perception, cognition, labor and advocacy.

    1) Female consumption, short term (progressive)

    2) Male biased production, medium term (libertarian)

    3) Male accumulation, long term (conservative)

    And that through voluntary exchange we ‘calculate’ the optimum for the group, despite the fact that none of us senses the entire spectrum sufficiently to make a general judgement.

    I see the creative, productive, and ‘true’ processes as merely different points on the timeline of knowledge development:

    Knowledge Evolution | Production | Norm Evolution

    0) Inspiring (sensing and perceiving) | (feeling)

    1) Hypothesis |(free association) | (idea)

    2) Theorizing | (experimentation) | (trial and error)

    3) Law | (production) | (habit)

    4) “True” | (truth statement) | (norm)

    So I don’t interpret a hierarchy of these different perspectives, but excellences in all three, each of which advocates for his temporal constituency.

    So my understanding is not one of ‘one-ness’, ‘or penultimate man’, or ‘hierarchy’, but that each of us supplies specialization in some domain. And that as needs emerge and opportunities emerge, we make use of the elites in that period with the ability to best lead us into exploiting it.

    In other words, I merely describe what is, not what I think should be. I don’t try to say that we should do X, only that if we want to evolve that we must NOT do things that prevent us from doing so.

    There is no recipe for free association (creativity).

    There are recipes for testing your hypotheses, such that we warranty that they are free of externality.

    Thanks


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-29 11:22:00 UTC

  • Q&A: “ARE THEIR ‘HIGHER’ PSYCHOLOGIES THAN TRUTH? —“It sounds like you’re reco

    Q&A: “ARE THEIR ‘HIGHER’ PSYCHOLOGIES THAN TRUTH?

    —“It sounds like you’re recognizing there are higher psychologies than that of the mere scientist.”—

    Well, I disagree that for the purposes of LAW and TRUTH claims, that there are ‘higher’ psychologies, but for the purpose of CREATIVITY yes, I agree. My position is that matters of creativity are the subject of aesthetics, not metaphysics, truth, epistemology, ethics, politics or war.

    I have observed the same reaction from scientists who think that they’re work is the most ‘spiritually advanced’: the critical rationalists are determined that they not be constrained, and are not responsible for the externalities produced by their failure to warranty that their work has been laundered.

    Why would I expect artists, authors, theists, philosophers, scientists or whatever other group that claims spiritual superiority to accept both that their desire for creativity in their frame of reference is not special in the least, that their work is not special in the least – only subject to less empirical tests of failure; or to accept accountability for their speech and action, since they themselves would say that they need no such limits, given their moral character, and desire to create not decide, not police, not punish.

    Except the evidence is otherwise. People want to pretend their smarter than they are, to utter nonsense, to obtain status with nonsense utterances, and not to be held accountable for that which they failed to foresee. People are ridiculous really, in all walks of life. But without such nonsensical pretenses we would not be motivated enough to get out of bed and struggle against the dark forces of time and ignorance.

    Given that more damage has been done by priests, philosophers, politicians, and pseudoscientists than has been done by warriors, the great plagues, and only matched by volcanic disruption of the ecosystem, it is merely prudent that the most irresponsible people warranty that they do no harm instead of escape liability for that harm they have observably done.

    Liars all. Particularly to ourselves.

    So as one who is learning, I understand the desire for creativity and experience. As one who defends civilization I also understand that we can, and must, limit the damage that can be done by those who would seek status and affirmation, and excitement, through falsehood.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-29 10:59:00 UTC

  • Hi Felicity!!! Happy birthday! Best wishes. Hugs and such. You’re awesome. -curt

    Hi Felicity!!!

    Happy birthday! Best wishes. Hugs and such.

    You’re awesome.

    -curt.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-29 09:07:00 UTC

  • Man. I like to work. But Don Don Finn makes me feel like a slacker. Damn. Seriou

    Man. I like to work. But Don Don Finn makes me feel like a slacker.

    Damn. Seriously.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-29 09:02:00 UTC

  • WALTER BLOCK’S IMMORALISM Walter is an immoralist. Not an amoralist, or a morali

    https://www.biv.com/article/2015/10/economic-freedom-report-sparks-fraser-institute-bi/ON WALTER BLOCK’S IMMORALISM

    Walter is an immoralist. Not an amoralist, or a moralist, but an immoralist: he is the only remaining advocate of eastern european, cosmopolitan, low-trust, ghetto ethics.

    For some reason it has eluded him that any anarchic society must eliminate incentives that create demand for the state, not gossip, rally and shame people who demand the state as a means of preventing and punishing parasitism. Walther’s ethic, like Rothbards, is based upon volition and the preservation of ‘cheating’, rather than the prevention of conflict and retaliation that force people to engage in production, distribution and trade.

    That it is the very ethic for which his ancestors were nearly exterminated, in every era of history, seems to be lost on him.

    The only liberty that is possible is that which western high trust civilization created: rule of law applicable to all, and the requirement for productive, fully informed, voluntary, exchange free of externality of the same criteria – thereby prohibiting murder, theft, violence, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by externality, free riding, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, conquest and war.

    The western ethic evolved to prevent retaliation and preserve the peace, to allow the construction of commons and to prohibit the devolution of individuals by appealing to their base instincts, thereby distracting them from productive work.

    Walter’s ethic, like Rothbard’s, is one of parasitic and predatory encouragement of hyper-consumption in order to transfer wealth that would otherwise be capitalized in the commons into the hands of those who undermine that commons.

    The first principle of ethics is not volition. It is “Why do I not kill or enslave you and take your women and your property?”. The answer is, it is preferable to let you remain alive and free if and only if you give me no reason to do otherwise by engaging in productive action that causes no harm to me, my kin or our commons.

    We have killed nearly all people in history who engaged in immoral actions, and until the 20th century hung one half to one percent of the population, which combined with manorialism and seasonality of nature produced the most eugenic society on earth, which was responsible in no small part for our prosperity.

    Walter is of that class of men who wants to reduce people to hedonistic barbarism so he can profit from their devolution by parasitic predation upon them, while claiming he is a moral man.

    That is the truth of it. That is the truth of cosmopolitanism. That is the truth of rothbardian libertinism.

    Liberty can be brought into existence only under rule of law, under the total prohibition on parasitism, and insured by the community by the codification of that prohibition in property rights, and the martial requirement for productive action in order to participate in the commons produced by those who engage in productive action.

    By conflating terminology as the Germans have done since Kant, Rothbard tried to achieve by appropriating the term liberty, what the left had achieved through the appropriation of the term liberal, and by telling a half truth, that allowed pathologically altruistic westerners to sympathize with the words stated, then using their intuition to supply the unstated consequences with altruistic rather than parasitic intentions.

    Most of the deceits of the 19th and 20th centuries (Hayek’s imprecisely named, new era of mysticism) were accomplished by Marx, Boaz, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Rothbard, the Frankfurt School, and the Keynesians, Postmodernists, Feminists, Rawlsians and Continentals: verbal deceptions to justify theft by one means or another by a combination of conflation, obscurantism, loading, framing, and overloading, in order to cause overwhelm frail human reason, and to rely upon suggestion to achieve what science and reason could not. That this is the same technique used by the monotheists in each era is not lost on all of us. We are just now, since Pinker threw exiting the second attempt at overthrowing science and reason: the first with babylonian mysticism distributed through immigrants, slaves and women, and the second through pseudoscience, immigrants and women newly enfranchised into democracy.

    End the lie. Rothbardianism is not an argument for liberty, but an argument for libertinism – not only a fraudulent attempt to escape genetic, normative-behavioral and physical payments for the commons. But an argument in favor of theft of the commons.

    The closure of the Stoic schools and the forcible introduction of Christianity is one uncompensatable and profoundly immoral crime enough for all of western history to tolerate. The usurpation of the social sciences, the academy, the media, and the state was the second attempt to bring about another age of mysticism, and another dark age.

    Science, Truth, Morality and Law, will succeed this time around. The only libertarianism necessary or possible is under rule of law mandating productivity for membership in the commons that we call the market. Because only under the total prohibition on parasitism is demand for the state both eliminated, and local transaction costs reduced sufficiently that it is rational to prefer an anarchic polity over a statist one.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-29 08:45:00 UTC

  • PAYING VS EXPORTING, IMPRISONING, STARVING OR HANGING It is parasitic (immoral)

    PAYING VS EXPORTING, IMPRISONING, STARVING OR HANGING

    It is parasitic (immoral) to control the lower classes with lies. If we wish them to limit their reproduction, and cease their parasitism upon us, and restore the commons, and restore the civic society, then the HONEST and TRUE and MORAL thing to do, is to pay them for doing so.

    Violence, and Gossip (argument) are just means of lying in order to obtain a discount. In a world where men live in subsistence farming, entry into the market requires we pay the price of forgoing parasitism.

    In a world where they cannot enter the labor market, nor can return to subsistence farming, they possess no incentive other than parasitism upon us via creating demand for a predatory state.

    So we must provide alternative incentive for those people who are materially unproductive (especially given that it is very likely that the condition will worsen and spread.)

    The only people I want to hang are in the State, Academy, Media complex – the Cathedral. the rest I want only to pay to not reproduce. Which I consider far better than our previous technologies of starvation and hanging.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-29 07:08:00 UTC

  • THE HIGH COST OF TRUTH AND THE HIGH RETURN OF CIVIC SOCIETY What if neither stat

    THE HIGH COST OF TRUTH AND THE HIGH RETURN OF CIVIC SOCIETY

    What if neither state, academy, religion or media could speak falsehoods into the commons (audience) without fear of legal retaliation and necessity of restitution? What if state, academy, religion and media had to warrant their product as all other products are warranted?

    What if religious could state what prophets believed, but could not claim it was true, only myth, parable, and metaphor? What if professors could not teach falsehoods and had to warrant as such? What if philosophers could not rely upon conflation, loading, framing and overloading?

    What if we taught truth-telling, history, and literature again as well as science and mathematics? Meaning grammar, rhetoric, observation, and testimony?

    Given that the Flynn effect appears to be caused by the spread of scientific methods of thought – general rules rather than individual uses – why wouldn’t we experience the same expansion of human capability by the institution of truth telling that we have experienced with literacy, general education, and science?

    Wouldn’t truth telling be the next obvious stage in pacification, continuing humanity’s long history of incrementally suppressing parasitism and forcing people into productive rather than parasitic behaviors in order to survive?

    What is the price you would be willing to pay to remove lies from public discourse as we have largely eliminated deception from contract, and fraud from products and services? Why should we not cleanse the commons the same as we have cleansed the private sector.

    Why not end the marxist, socialist, and postmodern era’s profligate deception as a means of uniting academy and state at the expense of civic society and church? Is telling the truth so high a cost that you would preserve the various means of deception that seek to restore the authoritarianism of the church?

    Truth is enough. But liars love their lies, and the utility of their lying. They argue that a beneficial lie is better than a difficult truth. But when in history has an increased tax – a cost we must pay to produce a commons – not a burden for us?

    Truth is a high tax to pay.

    But with that tax we create liberty, prosperity, and a better mankind.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-29 05:26:00 UTC

  • CHURCH SERVICES? What if your ‘church’, which provided feast and ritual, also pr

    CHURCH SERVICES?

    What if your ‘church’, which provided feast and ritual, also provided services including education, banking, insurance, and a militia? The market serves to provision those functions, but why should they operate for profit? Why is market individualism more advantageous than collective bargaining?


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-29 04:21:00 UTC