As a man you’d be loyal to the hierarchy, loyal to the business, absorb hardship on their behalf, limit your interjection and opinion to the materially relevant, never suggest wasting resources on consumption, discover competitive opportunities more often, and gossip-undermine less.
#IfIWereTheOppositeSex
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-21 12:27:00 UTC
OUR THREE BIGGEST ERRORS
Better to think of monarchies as intergenerational custodians. It is clearly better to have intergenerational families make profits or loss from rule (arts and limits) and a rotating middle class for governance (commons). Conflating rule and governance has been one of our three largest errors:
1) conflating rule and governance
2) not expanding houses for the classes.
3) repeating the roman error of the unearned franchise.
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-21 11:57:00 UTC
TRADITIONAL ELECTIVE MONARCHY
—“An elected monarch does work if that person has strong personality & support. One example from the past is Jan Sobieski, King of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth.”—Stephen Stobinski
The Propertarian Institute I think that it’s a good idea to have a large and extended family to choose from, and for the family to put forward the best candidate for ‘approval’ or ‘rejection’. This would continue our ancient traditions.
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-21 11:53:00 UTC
I’d personalize everything, think my emotions and impulses were meaningful information, never accept blame or responsibility, hold grudges eternally, gossip, judge everyone especially women by trivialities, be incapable of basic economics and politics.
#IfIWereTheOppositeSex
(sarcasm)
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-21 11:33:00 UTC
We hunted iron like wild game, and iron-smelting families lived apart to preserve their secrets. Today we have a pretty clear idea of how they made iron – and it was a group project: time consuming and hard work. But it produced high returns in exchange. One could not divulge his source of ore. Nor the process. And the process is as much art as science.
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-21 11:32:00 UTC
I’d personalize everything, think my emotions and impulses were meaningful information, never accept blame or responsibility, hold grudges eternally, gossip, judge everyone especially women by trivialities, be incapable of basic economics and politics.
#IfIWereTheOppositeSex
(sarcasm)
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-21 11:18:00 UTC
THERE ARE NO BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE.
Man is just a rational actor, and physical crime has become less rewarding because assets are largely intangible, consumption is absurdly cheap – especially foods, there are many more means of entertainment (yes crime is also a form of entertainment).
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-21 11:00:00 UTC
PINKER HAS JOINED FREUD, BOAS, MARX, ADORNO, HARARI, HARRIS IN SELLING HALF TRUTHS
NO, VIOLENCE (harm) is evolving (progressing) along the spectrum from physical, to financial, economic, to informational. There is more HARM than ever in human history and on far greater scales. It’s just distributed across time across the entirety of human capital. Measure it.
—“Pinker addresses this in the FAQ on his site. Metaphorically extending the term ‘violence’ to practices you want to stigmatize(financial crime, inequality, etc) with rape, homicide and genocide confuse moralization with understanding. … Certainly, there are new financial, economic and informational practices that are bad and may even be increasing, but Pinker’s work is focused on violence, not “bad things”.”—
I know law and philosophy are my specializations but I would think that was pretty hard for you to say that with an outside voice. Ergo: why is violence a ‘bad’? And why make the claim in the first place if not to claim harms are declining (they aren’t).
In other words, (a) false promise to people by the sophism that harms are declining (they aren’t),(b) false promise of disambiguation of physical from net harms? So what if physical harm declines while net harm increases, for no other reason than physical harm is less profitable?
All Steven is saying is what every other economist says: harms are NOT decreasing, it’s just that physical crimes are more costly and less profitable than at any previous time in history. So why not state Whole Truth? Another system of lies like Boas, Freud, Marx, Cantor? See?
This is the problem with the left of center “Pseudo -Intellectual’ public intellectuals: They produce what sells but is only half true and that’s because they rely on correlations not as economists or physicists: OPERATIONALISMS.
Tell the WHOLE truth not half-truth: lying.
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-21 10:56:00 UTC
Europeans brought China heroin, and the jews brought Europe Judaism(Christianity), and the Muslims bring Islam. there is no difference at all. We did the in Americas 400 years ago what we’d done to Europe and Eurasia 4000 years ago. In retrospect, our crime was not doing to the middle east what we had done to the Americas – because that would have ended world conflict. We have no bar to India. We have no bar to china. Our only bar to Russia is she may not have eastern Europe – Russians are still people of the steppe. We have no bar to Africa other than she keeps her people in Africa. The only world problem is Semitia and its civilizational industrialization of lying, dysgenia, and consumption.
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-21 09:46:00 UTC
—“Once lefties come to terms with genetic science, they will demand “fair distribution” of genes.”—Serg Gio
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-21 09:29:00 UTC