http://24tv.ua/home/showSingleNews.do?putins_main_aim__occupy_whole_ukraine_kwasniewski&objectId=431334&lang=en”TO OCCUPY (CONQUER) THE WHOLE OF UKRAINE”
If Russia had something positive to add to the world, rather than as a source of corruption, brutality, and poverty, then that would be one thing. But Russia is a net negative influence on everything it touches.
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-10 15:18:00 UTC
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/04/demographics_conservatism_and_racial_polarization_could_america_become_mississippi.htmlUnder democracy, diversity is ‘a bad’.
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-10 13:57:00 UTC
Nicolás Gómez Dávila
Skye turned me onto Davila today. After reading a bit of his work it’s pretty clear that he’s against modernity and in favor of mysticism. But I did managed to pull a few gems together:
–“Liberty is not an end, but a means. Whoever mistakes it for an end does not know what to do once he attains it.”–
–“Perfection is the point where what we can do and what we want to do coincide with what we ought to do”–
–“Violence is not necessary to destroy a civilization. Each civilization dies from indifference toward the unique values which created it.”–
–“Modern man does not love, but seeks refuge in love; does not hope, but seeks refuge in hope; does not believe, but seeks refuge in a dogma.”–
—“Civilization is a poorly fortified encampment in the midst of rebellious tribes.”—
–“Love of the people is an aristocratic calling. The democrat only loves the people at election time.”–
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-10 13:19:00 UTC
JUSTIFICATION VS EXPLANATION
(ethics)
1) Rothbardian ethics: How to justify both private property, and private theft by deception and parasitism.
2) Public Choice Theory (Social Democracy) : How to justify public theft by pseudoscience and parasitism.
3) Hoppe’s Anarcho Capitalism : How to justify private property, and eliminate the monopoly bureaucracy and the state.
4) Aristocratic Egalitarianism : How to resolve all *possible* conflicts via the common law, and eliminate all demand for the state – no justification is needed.
All I did was base Hoppe’s deductions made from Argumentation on science and reason, rather than pseudoscience (praxeology) and rationalism.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-10 11:06:00 UTC
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/07/absolute-nuclear-families.html?m=1DEFINITION: “Absolute Nuclear Family”, (“A.N.F.”, “ANF”)
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-10 09:22:00 UTC
STRUGGLING
This damned problem is just frustrating me. I know it’s because I don’t feel well and I’m tired. But I cannot quite get my arms around how to easily communicate all these different causal axis. I must make it easier to understand moral rules, transaction costs of immorality, and the consequential demand for state intervention. If I can do a better job of that, then it will be more obvious that the common law must correspond to morality en toto (crime, ethics and immorality), not just aggression against intersubjectively verifiable private property.
It seems like I should be able to do it with a graph. But I must be able to make a better narrative first. If I cannot articulate it as human action I’ll have failed my own criteria for moral claims.
Years ago I would struggle to get the most basic ideas across. Now at least I only struggle with the most complex. Decades of slow progress to improve my weakness.
I knew I had something sitting out there to block me. I just didn’t see this one coming.
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-09 18:41:00 UTC
THE POPULAR WILL : MURDER
–“…our civilization rests on the death of two persons: a philosopher (Socrates) and the Son of God (Jesus), both victims of the popular will.”– Madariaga
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-09 18:35:00 UTC
GENDER RELATIONS : OFFSPRING VS TRIBES
Women are more comfortable with free riding and with charity, and men are extremely conservative about resources. Women happily sacrifice for their children. Men cautiously sacrifice for their tribe. Women advocate for their children regardless of their merits, while men are more parsimonious because they desire the strongest tribe. For men, a woman and his children are just the smallest possible tribe that he can lead. For a woman, it is very risky, especially in the ignorance of youth, to choose just one man upon which to risk her future.
While men cannot articulate this set of intuitions and strategies, women often confuse the difference in evolutionary strategies between men and women. And particularly the difference between a woman’s offspring, and a man’s tribe.
I’ve seen so many marriages where the woman expects the man to have the same interest toward her and the children, as she has. And there are some men who approach a woman’s sacrifice. But for the majority of us, it is a very bad investment. And with the state making it impossible for us to save for retirement, given our shorter productive life spans, and greater specialization, and greater variation – it’s now an extremely bad idea to engage in marriage.
Marriage is an artificial construct. For a man, he is best off if he trades productivity (no longer protection) and affection for as many women as he can get attention from. And a woman’s best interest is to form a group with other women and select from different men what she wants and needs. This is how we evolved: everyone having sex with everyone else – some of which was for bond building, and some of which was for the purpose of reproduction.
Any society that does not maintain at least the nuclear family will be dominated an exterminated by those that do.
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-09 08:05:00 UTC
— VISITING LONDON — ALL OF NEXT WEEK–
Tickets already in my callus free hands that have never done an honest day’s toil. Hoping to see libertarian friends while in town. First trip out of Ukraine since September.
🙂
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-08 18:15:00 UTC
For the past couple of weeks I’ve been working on the simplicity of the argument and I think I have it pretty close to done. Now I have to think about how to introduce it. And I think I’lld approach it by formulating the right question (stating the right problem). I don’t think I’ll tie it to libertarianism directly, but take Haidt’s approach of simply addressing the issue. That makes my arguments less ‘niche’ and less associated with ‘whacky libertarians’.
PART 1 – MORAL REALISM (ETHICS)
I think the best thing is to state the problem, then state the whole argument.
Then list the extensions to property, ethics and morality.
Then show how the argument addresses the problem. Then pose a list of questions that this argument must also address to confirm it’s assertions.
Then I rearrange my chapters such that they address those questions.
Then I follow that with the (many) applications.
PART 2 – POLITICAL ETHICS
I think at this point I address moral realism from the ground up. Including the performative (Attestation) theory of truth, and work through each of the major branches of philosophy.
Next I attack platonism, obscurantism, pseudoscience, and mysticism as immoral, and add the new extensions to political ethics.
PART 3 – POLITICAL ECONOMY
Work through the institutional solutions now that we’ve built a foundation.
PART 4 – APPENDICES
APPENDIX 2 – Reform Libertarianism.
Address praxeology
Address ghetto ethics
APPENDIX 3 – Reform Conservatism
APPENDIX 4 – Brief Attack on Democratic Ideologies one by one.
APPENDIX X – Go through the formal logic of cooperation. This seems very difficult but since I’m just building on Ostrom’s work I don’t have to go into all the multitudinous defenses she does, I just extend that work.
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-08 15:12:00 UTC