GENIUS BIT OF THE DAY
—“I’m trying to get over my American prohibition on selfishness, but women need somewhere to put their monumental nurturing instinct. Because if they don’t put it into their man, or their children, they’ll put it into cats and Socialism.”— Roman.
(rolling lol)
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-24 15:01:00 UTC
(from elsewhere)
Sean Gabb,
While I laud the criticism of our abstract arguments, I will simply point out what the data says: that libertarians fail because the left majority rejects our economic arguments, and the right rejects our moral arguments.
As I have written about somewhat extensively by now, libertarians are, according to the evidence, morally blind. Not as morally blind as progressives, but none the less, morally blind. And we consistently make immoral arguments.
The reason being that the extreme libertinism that we are propagating under the term ‘libertarian’ actively seeks to undermind construction of the commons, makes no demand for truth telling, nor for the ostracization and punishment of those who prevent the commons, and engage in deceit.
However, the west – the only people ever to produce liberty in human history – accomplished this feat through means diametrically opposed to those of the libertines: (a) participation in the violent construction of individual proprety rights in order to obtain those property rights from others in exchange. (b) the violent suppression of authority wherever it arises whenever possible, (c) the violent suppression of all deceit in all forms in all walks of life wherever it occurred, (d) the production of commons and mandatory participation in that production, (e) the ostracization, deprivation and frequent murder of those who violated commons whehter normative or physical.
Liberty is a consequence of the militia’s martial virtues.
There is no other possible means of constructing proerty ‘rights’ except as in such an exchange. There is no possibility – an absolute impossibility – to produce an anarchic polity in a low trust society without producing demand for an authoritarian state to suppress these behaviors. Any more than there is a possiblity of producing a communist society. Why? Becuase incentives for labor under the voluntary organization of production are necessary. Just as incentives for the voluntary construction of commons is necessary. Neither property, truth telling, nor contribution to the commons are of obvious short term interest. And that is why man has rarely except in the martial peoples been able to construct truth telling, trust, property, and commons.
Libertinism fails because it is a mere verbalism. A beggarly appeal. You cannot ask the under classes to cease their parasitism. You cannot ask the bureaucratic classes to cease their rent seeking. You cannot ask liars to stop lying when it is their means of survival. It is irrational for them to obey. In fact, maximum parasitism and rent seeking are the most rational course of action for all peoples.
Liberty was constructed by violence. It must be constructed by violence. It has never been constructed by persuasion. Because it is not in the interest of the many. Liberty is an aristocratic virtue. The producer of goods and services cannot ignore the demands of the producer of property rights.
And that is what libertarians are doing: carrying on an act of verbal fraud in order to avoid a trade with the producers of property rights using organize violence. They want high trust norms in exchange for the creation of order. Libertines do not want a trade. Warriors will give us our property rights in return, but only if we give them their norms.
To ask otherwise is to perpetuate an argumentative fraud by which we make a false moral appeal that we should get what we desire at a discount, while they should sell what we desire at a discount.
This is merely fraud.
And this fraud is why we fail.
Whatever happens in your home is your own business. But talking, advertising, promoting, evangelizing it is not your own business – it takes place in the normative commons. And it is that commons that conservatives produce. We merely ride upon it.
If we want our property rights we must exchange with conservatives their want of norms. No one gets what he wants en toto. All exchanges are a compromise.
If we exchange with conservatives, then we can crush the kleptocracy. And be the thought leaders of all.
Otherwise we will remain the decadent, immoral, and irrelevant in all politics.
As libertines deserve to be.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-24 06:54:00 UTC
http://healthpsy.home.ro/files/SCU/3%20laws%20of%20behavioral%20genetics.pdf
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-24 04:12:00 UTC
And women have successfully voted to destroy western property rights in every election after the first generation of women voters. Today almost all elections are decided by women, and principally by unmarried women and single mothers (see Pew). Without women voters we would never have moved to the left, destroyed the constitution, destroyed the family (the compromise), and had rampant immigration.
Until we developed paternalism, women used sex to manage extended families. Men developed property, and paternalism, and instead of a few men reproducing, many did. All advancement in human history is the product of property rights – and women have destroyed them. And destroyed the west.
So the future looks very much like the conquest of the west, and the return to greco-islamic paternalism. Why? Because women used democracy to violate the compromise that made western civilization possible.
For men, it is much more desirable to live in a paternal world. It is easy for us to dominate women. We don’t make civilization for ourselves, but for the admiration of our wives and daughters.
The only choice women have ever had was the one western men gave them. And they destroyed it with their folly and greed.
Women gossip. Women destroy each other through hen-pecking in groups. Women destroy advanced society. It’s not complicated. It’s in their nature.
Through most of history, women (gossips) were considered the root of all evil. It appears that even in advanced society, history repeats itself.
We made a mistake deifying women in the victorian era.
We were right all along.
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-24 03:20:00 UTC
PROPERTARIAN POSITION ON GENETIC MODIFICATION
(good read)(from elsewhere)(worth repeating)
Hiroshi: We are opening Pandora’s Box.
Curt: Or are we achieving our potential?
Hiroshi: Yes, but potential for good or evil?
Curt: Good and evil are technical terms in my universe. And this technology, like violence, is neutral.
The question is whether the ends produce risk to the genome. But since at all times when we suppress the reproduction of the underclasses, or when upper classes migrate to new areas, mankind evolves rapidly; and because morality increases and impulsivity decreases and time preference lengthens with intelligence, our only choice between Brazil on one end and Star Trek on the other in a populated planet is this one.( Superior intelligence does not breed superior ambition or aggression. )
As far as I know aggression defeats intelligence and Huntington missed that observation.
Hegel was wrong as well – heroism and by consequence, sovereignty, jury and truth telling are the cause of western rates of development.
Hiroshi: In my universe, good and evil are not technical terms. Imagine a universe in which no human beings exist. In that universe there is neither good nor evil: everything is technical and neutral. Good and evil can exist only when human beings exist. Good and evil become important terms when human beings decides their mode of being or make “judgment” in the sense of Hannah Arendt. (See my short essay above on Arendt’s conception of judging)
Curt: Sorry, I meant ‘technical’ in the sense of objective. And objective in the sense of independent of introspection. I also use the term ‘decidable’, appropriated from mathematics, to avoid the loading on the term ‘judgement’. The difference being that introspection and therefore subjectivity is present in judgement, and not present in decidability. So good and evil are decidable propositions.
In this sequence: One can be lax. One an err. One can privatize. One can engage in predation. One can engage in destruction without benefit to the self. One can engage in destruction that produces a chain of destructive externalities. The last is my definition of ‘evil’ and immoral.
If on the other hand, one warrants defense against externalities (takes all possible known precautions), in order to create a chain of beneficial externalities – then this is ‘good’ and moral.
The concepts of good and evil, judgement, justice, and morality, have been inherited from our ancient past and remain loaded with introspective demands, because of our failure to articulate the necessary and sufficient properties of cooperation. But the necessary and sufficient properties of cooperation are no longer unknown but trivial.
What remains is the analysis of strategies. Western (scientific) Truth, Anglo-Jewish Political Correctness, Russian-Jewish Postmodernism, Chinese Delay-Deceit, Hindu Avoidance, and Muslim Denial and rebellion. Each is a strategy for group persistence.
In the context of this question, the positive externalities of improving the genome, and creating supermen – or at least, highly intelligent, attractive (symmetrical) and with a moral bias, is hard to argue with.
This technology exists already. We do it by assortative mating. We call it ‘castes’ or ‘classes’. A race to the top (selective breeding) has always produced better ends than a race to the bottom (through excess reproduction of the lower classes).
So my question is instead the non-intuitive: we are now engaged in an experiment called ‘redistribution’ which increases the rates of the lower classes, and suppresses the rates of the middle classes, and has isolated our upper classes. This experiment has evolved (through advocacy of democracy under the ‘enlightenment’) into a dysgenic disaster that one can easily call ‘evil’, and it’s promotors ‘evil’ as well, by the very technical criterion I proposed above. Society has become ordered to value a negative by use of a ‘judgement’ that democracy is a good, when the consequences are an evil.
So why is it not beneficial to reorder society around a judgement that improves man, rather than devolves him?
I would much rather have a public debate, and a ‘judgement’ about how to handle the improvement of man, than the current debate about how to degenerate him.
So in this sense, suppressing this technology is to persist an evil.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
( Eli Harman: add this to the weapons cache)
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-24 03:16:00 UTC
—“First he comes for the banks and health care, uses the IRS to go after critics, politicizes the Justice Department, spies on journalists, tries to curb religious freedom, slashes the military, throws open the borders, doubles the debt and nationalizes the Internet.
He lies to the public, ignores the Constitution, inflames race relations and urges Latinos to punish Republican “enemies.” He abandons our allies, appeases tyrants, coddles adversaries and uses the Crusades as an excuse for inaction as Islamist terrorists slaughter their way across the Mideast. — Now he’s coming for Israel.— Barack Obama’s promise to transform America was too modest. He is transforming the whole world before our eyes. Do you see it yet?”—
The most destructive president in history. Our very own Nero.
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-23 16:39:00 UTC
(geek humor)
Vitalii checks in a whole bunch of programming tasks as complete. A lot for one day. I get really excited. He’s standing outside having a cigarette. To get a laugh, I tell him that when he does that much work in one day, it makes me think that he can do even more work the next day.
He nods. Laughs. Looks sideways. Says “I thought of that.”
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-23 11:26:00 UTC
CULTURAL METHODS OF UNIVERSAL DECEIT
(worth repeating)
—“What remains is the analysis of strategies. Western (scientific) Truth, Anglo-Jewish Political Correctness (deceit), Russian-Jewish Postmodernism (deceit), Jewish Pseudoscience, Pseudo-rationalism, Psudo-moralism, and Overloading (deceit), Chinese Delay and Deceive (deceit), Hindu Avoidance (self-deciet), Buddhist Denialism (self deceit), and Muslim Denial and Rebellion (self-deceit). Each is a strategy for group persistence. Only Western scientific, operational, correspondent, internally consistent, testimony, free of imaginary content is truthful speech. Everything else is deceit. And even western science, by avoiding moral argument that requires the voluntary transfers of our ancestors, is also a deceit. Man lies. Man deceives. All men lie and deceive. But largely because the truth is inconvenient.”—
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-23 09:42:00 UTC
FEMINISTS: BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR
The first problem for any society is to find positive incentives for men.
Feminism seeks to position men as oppressors – instead of our traditional roles as a compromise. But it is a compromise for both genders.
For most of us, Islamic paternal domination, and daily tribal warfare, or African enslavement of women is a more desirable way to live than the tedium of labor, office, tax, law and family.
In the family, women compromise and men compromise. But, If not, then men will no longer compromise either. They will first abandon society. Then family. Then pursue self interest.
5%,unhappy women just complain. 5% unhappy men without access to sex and marriage cause revolutions every time.
And or tribes are not equal in aggression. The relative docility of Asian males should not obscure the relative aggressiveness of steppe and desert males.
So we compromise or be subjugated. None of us gets our ideal.
Any soldier will in confidence confess that robbing, raping and pillaging is far preferable to sedentary life.
The Romans made a business of it. The Muslims are currently making entertainment out of it.
Men build the world for the benefit of and approval of women.
We can just as easily destroy it if that incentive ends.
Women are along for the ride.
Be careful what you wish for.
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-23 04:25:00 UTC
MASTERING DECEIT TO MASTER TRUTH
One must sometimes master the art of deceit, in order to appreciate the art of truth telling. While deceit often is employed to save effort, truth telling is disproportionately burdensome. Without such an appreciation of truth telling, it is hard to willingly pay the cost of employing it. Mere pragmatic communication – energy saving as it is – is our default mode of operation.
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-23 03:23:00 UTC