Source: Facebook

  • (I like this one better as the Aristocratic Egalitarian Challenge) “I do not nee

    (I like this one better as the Aristocratic Egalitarian Challenge)

    “I do not need your permission to attack you.

    I don’t seek your negotiation, approval, or your consent,

    I seek your defeat. And I seek to defeat you completely.

    If you fear your defeat you may seek to understand,

    And if you come to understand, then you may pay restitution;

    And you may end your immoral words and deeds.

    But until you pay restitution, and end your immoral words and deeds,

    I will defeat you by words.

    if I cannot obtain your restitution with words.

    Then I will defeat you with violence, and take it from you.

    Because morality demands that I defeat you.”

    I’ve been working on this for a bit. Not quite there yet.

    It’s all sitting there in history to pick up and be converted into rational language. The problem is it’s wrapped in pseudo-religious poetry of the church. Economics is the language of morality. Even if economists use it to practice immorality.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 02:23:00 UTC

  • ALTRUISM IS NOT POSSIBLE AS A GENERAL RULE – IT CAN ONLY BE PRACTICED AS A HAND-

    ALTRUISM IS NOT POSSIBLE AS A GENERAL RULE – IT CAN ONLY BE PRACTICED AS A HAND-CRAFT

    (choice words)(great paragraphs)

    —“Altruism is not a mindless general rule to be obeyed as an act of faith independent of measurement – it is a hand-craft to be mastered by individuals, and put to wise use – it is a local activity, limited to personal experience, that must be personally judged, and can never be centralized in the state, or church. It must always be limited to the individual and his voluntary decisions. The only thing that we can centralize is war, and the only certainty we can depend upon is truth-telling and a jury’s judgement of that truth, and the ruthless punishment of liars, obscurers and deceivers, and the careful cautious demand for restitution from those who merely err.”—

    –“Redistribution of dividends from the respect for property rights, and contributions to the normative and physical commons that make the voluntary organization of production we call capitalism possible – is not a matter of altruism. It’s merely a matter of COMPENSATION. Yes we compensate each other in exchange when engaged in investment, production, distribution and trade. But for investment, production, distribution and trade to be possible we must possess property rights, and we possess property rights only because they are paid for by the forgone opportunities of all of us whether we are engaged in production or not. So what is the cost of constructing the voluntary structure of production we call capitalism, then? It is the difference in wealth between anarchy (no respect for property) and the respect for property, minus the wealth created by those engaged in production. The consequence of this logic is quite obvious: taking care of those who respect all norms necessary for the formation of property via dividends is merely just compensation for service performed. Conversely, those who do not, deserve nothing – and those who do not conform to the full spectrum of norms that reduce transaction costs in all walks of life, necessary for the formation of that voluntary organization of production, are not contributing ‘diversity’ but merely thieves. Race is irrelevant to the degree that one’s impulses are marginally indifferent. But norms are not. If you do not adopt the norms you are seeking rents, and are not due dividends.”–

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 02:11:00 UTC

  • NONSENSE – CREATIVE DIRECTORS If we look at the middle of any business women com

    http://adage.com/article/agency-news/women-aim-increase-creative-ranks-3-conference/295744/?utm_source=agency_email&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=adage&ttl=1415988872FEMINIST NONSENSE – CREATIVE DIRECTORS

    If we look at the middle of any business women compete exceptionally and often displace men, if for no other reason than women integrate into organizations more easily. If we look at the margins, both at the most troublesome and most exceptional, the ratio of men to women rapidly increases. We have known why that is the case for many, many years, and there is zero chance of altering it. As far as we know, saturation in the workplace has been achieved. There are not enough women at the upper or lower ends, to compete with men at those ends..Women are not held back. It’s just how evolution made us: men in the top percentiles in every field, and in the bottom percentiles in every field, rapidly exceed ten to one, and at some points achieve 40 or 50 to one. That’s pretty hard science and there isn’t any material chance of changing it.

    There are great women creative directors, but the ratio will always remain fairly constant. Its’ a function of distributions not of ability or bias. The best we can do is make the best of each other as individuals – we have spent too much time making gender irrelevant to make female gender any particular consequence.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-07 16:54:00 UTC

  • I AM AN ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN CHRISTIAN LIBERTARIAN It’s a very simple philos

    I AM AN ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN CHRISTIAN LIBERTARIAN

    It’s a very simple philosophy: Speak Truthfully. Respect Property-en-toto. Assist all who agree to liberty. Punish the wicked until you defeat them completely.

    SCORE?

    You are a: Objectivist Libertarian Total-Isolationist Nationalist Moderate

    Collectivism score: -100%

    Authoritarianism score: -67%

    Internationalism score: -100%

    Tribalism score: 33%

    Liberalism score: 0%

    THERE ARENT ANY MEANINGFUL ARISTOCRATIC QUESTIONS ON THE SURVEY. They assume the status quo.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-07 15:05:00 UTC

  • ON THE METHODS OF CRITICAL RATIONALISM AND STOICISM COMBINED You know, I lucked

    ON THE METHODS OF CRITICAL RATIONALISM AND STOICISM COMBINED

    You know, I lucked out sort of. I solved a set of very complicated problems. I solved those problems only because my cognitive bias favored solution of them. As a mild aspie I cannot stand disorder, and raised in high conflict household I cannot stand conflict. There are always compromises (exchanges) to be made. It is these exchanges, when they are not obstructions or rent, that eliminate conflict. We must always understand that we cannot have perfection, only what we can have without costing the interests of others.

    I remember telling something like this to Walter Block many years ago “Sometimes I think I am just a child observing a machine inside me that god created for the sole purpose of solving a problem I am not even sure I can name or describe.”

    I look back at my work now, and I understand the import of it in the context of human history, and I understand how powerful an argument it is against the catastrophe let loose by the combination of the enlightenment, and the rapid expansion of scientific knowledge that we rationalize but is still, for us, very close to magic, and our reason cannot quite compensate for it yet.

    BACK TO CRITICAL RATIONALISM AND STOICISM

    A man will build character if he focuses on his works. He plans his day. He performs his day. He analyzes his success and failure for that day. And he repeats this process perpetually, without regard for confusing, competing nonsense that pervades human society – all of which is little more than an attempt to rally support for the purpose of persuading one group to prey upon another, or compete with another. All of which works by rallying framing and guilt. When in fact, if all of us merely focus on what it is that is in front of us, we would organize as we need to without attempts to circumvent those efforts with mere verbal deceptions and promises.

    WORKING IN THE COAL MINDS OF PHILOSOPHY

    I approach work very simply. I want to provide a language for conservatives, so that they can argue their ancient group evolutionary strategy in rational terms. I want to give them an argumentative means of resisting the tragedies that have been visited upon our people by all three of the enlightenment cultures – even though I consider the german of little more than a distraction, anglo universalism as a mere error, and cosmopolitan pseudoscience, obscurantism, overloading, lying, parasitism a second act of genocide against the western people as damaging as christianity: it takes advantage of our strength: trust and altruism – because we have extend the in-group kinship ethic to all – and turns it into a liability, by preserving the altruism but destroying the structure of our myths and language that require us tot ell the truth.

    Altruism is not a mindless general rule to be obeyed as an act of faith – it is a craft to be mastered and put to wise use – it is a local activity, limited to personal experience, that must be personally judged, and can never be centralized in the state, or church. It must always be limited to the individual and his voluntary decisions. The only thing that we can centralize is war, and the only certainty we can depend upon is truth-telling and a jury’s judgement of that truth, and the ruthless punishment of liars, obscurers and deceivers, and the careful cautious demand for restitution from those who merely err.

    So the cosmopolitan attack on the west – on made entirely out of unconscious perpetuation of pre-modern evolutionary strategy – is a specifically crafted, genocidal attack on western commons as a means of preserving ‘separateness’ which by its nature, without exception, is a violation of the very principle that drives western altruism – togetherness: the extension of in-group trust to all members of the polity and the demand for universal integration in extension for that trust.

    There is no such thing possible as liberty or freedom that is compatible with a state of separatism, because liberty requires equal contribution to the commons even if we do not provide equal contribution to production.

    We are either able to construct a uniform and unified, homogenous, and high trust polity, without exception or we must construct walls between us to prevent precisely this form of degenerate attack – this second genocide against the west. Either we are kin or we are not. If we are not kin, then we are competitors, for whom cooperation is merely a more productive means of conducting war.

    CRITICAL RATIONALSM

    I just work as a scientist does: I sort of stumble onto a theory, and the try to construct arguments. If I cannot construct an argument (a propertarian, operational argument – which would equate to a praxeological argument that also corresponds to the evidence) then I have to abandon it. Once I can construct an argument of any kind, then I must try to break it. If it survives breaking, then try to find its limits.

    The secret in this technique is to assume you know nothing, and just prosecute the idea endlessly. If it survives all that then it is a candidate.

    If it is a candidate and it seems not to conflict with all other candidates in the same degree of contextual precision, then it seems to survive every test I can put it to.

    This does not make the same assumptions as do critical rationalists (as I understand them) in that they do not require operational construction or testimonial truth and they think that platonic abstract truth matters rather than that we construct many puzzle pieces that fit together as a set of (sort of) interlocking gears or wrenches or levers, and put them to use to solve real world problems, rather than we even pay any attention to the fact that this particular set of pieces is the most parsimonious possible.

    Because economically that is nonsensical -and possibly one of the reasons why jewish civilization, despite its early literacy, accomplished nothing despite it’s centuries of advantage, while, every time westerners managed to circumvent levantine authoritarian verbalism and mysticism, within a few hundred years we developed science and reason, and technological revolutions.

    They had their own problems. I don’t criticize people for survival, I criticize our people for our stupidity – our humility. It’s unwarranted. It lets parasites claim that hey have high status. And it has led to our genocidal failure in this century.

    MORE

    More later since my headache is just getting out of hand… lol


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-07 10:43:00 UTC

  • GETTING THE ARGUMENT RIGHT – CONSTRUCTION OF COMMONS It is not that there is no

    GETTING THE ARGUMENT RIGHT – CONSTRUCTION OF COMMONS

    It is not that there is no common good we can know, it is that, even if we can determine a common good, the monopoly state bureaucracy cannot construct a common good without an equally or worse, damaging set of externalities – by its mere existence. If a common good is truly possible to construct, the government (a body of people negotiating a contract with one another to whom all citizens must agree), can construct it without the aid of a monopoly bureaucracy – assuming that the first common goods that have been constructed are property and rule of law – and then contract out the execution of those commons to individuals who can be fired if they fail to perform, and held accountable for those failures by restitution, punishment or even death.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-07 10:03:00 UTC

  • ALTRUISM IS NOT A GENERAL RULE – IT IS A HAND-CRAFT (choice words)(great paragra

    ALTRUISM IS NOT A GENERAL RULE – IT IS A HAND-CRAFT

    (choice words)(great paragraphs)

    —“Altruism is not a mindless general rule to be obeyed as an act of faith – it is a craft to be mastered and put to wise use – it is a local activity, limited to personal experience, that must be personally judged, and can never be centralized in the state, or church. It must always be limited to the individual and his voluntary decisions. The only thing that we can centralize is war, and the only certainty we can depend upon is truth-telling and a jury’s judgement of that truth, and the ruthless punishment of liars, obscurers and deceivers, and the careful cautious demand for restitution from those who merely err.”—


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-07 09:54:00 UTC

  • I have usually ignored Africa, because it hasn’t been a threat to deal with. But

    I have usually ignored Africa, because it hasn’t been a threat to deal with. But Ayelam has eradicated some of my ignorance, and now got me freaking’ pissed.

    I don’t care what continent you’re, or what gene’s you’re carrying. If you desire liberty I will fight for you to obtain it.

    That is what ‘egalitarian’ means when we say Aristocratic Egalitarian.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-07 09:13:00 UTC

  • (I can finally make that strange back-of-the throat ‘ee’ sound – as if you’re ab

    (I can finally make that strange back-of-the throat ‘ee’ sound – as if you’re about to grunt ‘uh’ as if hit with a medicine ball, but then you narrow your throat from making the ‘uh’ grunt, until you make an ‘ee’ sound’, then you start the grunt with a sharp ‘tuh’. That’s how you pronounce the word ‘You’, which is written “Tbi”, which to us is ‘t-ee’ but the ee sound is deep in your throat – actually down in your esophagus. And for some reason I had a terrible time with it. Anyway, it’s pretty hard to speak Russian if you can’t say ‘you’. )


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-07 08:49:00 UTC

  • THE “RUSE” OF MORAL PRINCIPLES LIBERTY CAN ONLY EXISTS UNDER RULE OF LAW, AND TH

    THE “RUSE” OF MORAL PRINCIPLES

    LIBERTY CAN ONLY EXISTS UNDER RULE OF LAW, AND THEREFORE ONLY UNDER EXPRESSION OF GENERAL RULES EXPRESSED AS LAW.

    The only question is the scope of permissible law: the range of property humans intuit to aspire to acquire, that the community agrees to organize and apply violence to defend. And that which we are willing to defend depends entirely upon the marginal indifference of our political needs. Which is why diverse polities have lower trust and higher demand for more authoritarian intervention, and more homogenous polities have higher trust and less demand for authoritarian interventions.

    So no, despite the attempted distraction via overloading and framing of libertines, a ‘moral principle’ is just a deceptive argument, and a ‘guiding principle’ is just a ruse – a justification for not solving the very hard problem: of that which we consider to be property by our actions, and that which we are willing to enforce with our actions.

    Everything else is just an elaborate deception or convenient justification. In the cast of libertines, it’s an excuse to intentionally conflate libertinism with libertarianism. And worse, it’s an attempt to forbid the law from use as a means of retaliating against free riding, imposed costs, and involuntary transfers (all synonyms), each of which makes cooperation irrational.

    So the purpose of libertinism is to use a moral principle as a ruse to define a limit to the law, that specifically licenses free riding, imposed costs, and involuntary transfers – the labels we use for these thefts include unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial actions – by prohibiting both physical and legal retaliation for them.

    Worse, since the western competitive advantage is our ability to construct commons free of privatization, including the commons of property rights themselves, libertinism is an well designed attack on our ability to produce commons, and therefore our reproductive and competitive evolutionary strategy. Libertinism is as genocidal for the west as is the Cathedral’s democratic secular socialist humanism’s universalism.

    And I use the term “justification” as a synonym for self-deception – and yes, it is possible for our genes intuitions to deceive our consciousness through overloading. Just as it is possible for others to deceive us through loading, framing then overloading. That is why religions work in the construction belief despite overwhelming experiential evidence. Unconscious selection bias exists and is testable. Suggestion exists and is testable. There is no reason why evolution would favor a superiority of reason over intuition. That would a losing proposition.

    The only question is, what scope of suppression of involuntary transfers (imposed costs/free riding) is necessary for liberty to be rationally preferable over a state that imposed universal rules? The answer is to the rational question is found in transaction costs. At what point are local transaction costs sufficiently suppressed that the remote explicit costs of a state are no longer preferable?

    The moral ruse has harmed the course of liberty. Thankfully, the question, reframed as transaction costs, and rational choice, necessary to eliminate demand for the state, can restore the course of liberty.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-07 06:55:00 UTC