http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2014/02/modern-marriage-revolution-regression-monogamy.htmlWE ARE MAKING A RHETORICAL DENT IN THE POLITICAL UNIVERSE
One paragraph, post and argument at a time.
This fellow, has picked up on the message now.
Matriarchy is natural. It’s what we escaped in order to reverse universal rent seeking, and create prosperity.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-14 07:06:00 UTC
http://shar.es/QBhQ0YES WE NEED A NEW MATHEMATICAL REVOLUTION ON THE SCALE OF CALCULUS : THE UNIT OF COMMENSURABILITY IN THAT MATHEMATICS, IS PROPERTY, AND ITS GRAMMAR IS MORAL
The mathematical order of big data? Property.
1) Humans (life) is acquisitive.
2) Humans seek to acquire a limited number of categories of things. from experiences (feelings), to information, affection, mates, associates, and all manner of material things.
3) Human seek to avoid losses – more so than to acquire. especially life, children, kin, and mates, but also anything else that they have acted to acquire.
4) Humans must cooperate, and seek to cooperate, in the pursuit of their acquisitions.
5) The problem of cooperation for humans(all life) outside of kin, is the prevention of, and suppression of, free riding (involuntary transfer)
6) Humans develop layers of complex rules (myths, traditions, habits, manners, ethics, morals, and common laws) to assist in cooperating in whatever structure of production they exist under.
6) All human language can be expressed in a grammar. Even the most complex and abstract ideas can be expressed in the grammar of acquisition and cooperation we commonly call ‘property’: “That in which we have acted to acquire, and the moral (legal) constraints under which we have done it.
(I kind of wonder if this allows us to get past the comprehension limits of juries. At present, the trick is to have enough money, to afford to overwhelm the cognitive processing ability of the jury. It may be possible to analyze for example, a large trial, and produce a mathematical reduction of it, into terms that the jury can comprehend. The trial is still required, but we can reduce its complexity to an analogy to experience.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-14 03:48:00 UTC
CRAZY COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY
The Winter Break is over. I have had six board room phone conversations today, one after the other, with totally different companies.
(My physical and mental health seems to have returned. I’m almost at full gear again. Time to start a weight program now. Everything is SO much easier when you’re healthy. Trying to be smart when you’re desperately ill is traumatizing. )
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-13 15:11:00 UTC
UKRAINIAN HUMOR
(fun)
–Man prays to God: “Dear God. Why are girls so sweet and wonderful and women so b_tchy and mean?” God responds: “Because I made girls and you made women.” —
(ouch.. laughed pretty hard at that one. almost fell over.)
A woman just told me this ‘parable’ in exchange for criticizing her b*tchy-ness. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-13 13:22:00 UTC
http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/can-aristocracy-and-its-feudal-roots-offer-a-prospect-and-model-for-secessionist-solutions-to-the-present-crisis-in-britain/BEST ARTICLE THIS YEAR TO DATE: ARISTOCRACY AS A MODEL FOR SECESSION
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-13 12:57:00 UTC
ON WALTER BLOCK’S ADVOCACY OF GHETTO ETHICS
“Turns out he’s mostly wrong. Only chance of future funding streams, is to abandon parasitic ethics. Rothbard’s critique of the state is priceless, and his history is almost as good. But his choice to try to base liberty on the ethics of the ghetto, rather than the ethics of the aristocratic egalitarian polity did the movement more damage than all his other works did good. It’s non-logical, it’s ahistorical, and it’s a demonstrated failure.
Walter is the most popular justifier of parasitic ethics in the world. And I have learned a great deal from him. But , it turns out that like rothbard, he’s just wrong. The ghetto was a state within a state, acted like a state. And rothbard’s ethics are those of exchange between states, not polities. The irony of that statement is palpable.”
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-13 04:04:00 UTC
http://mises.org/daily/6654/Behavioral-Economics-and-Irrational-VotersIF WE CANNOT RATIONALLY CHOSE PRODUCTS, THEN HOW CAN WE RATIONALLY CHOOSE POLITICIANS?
(The Mises Institute willfully promotes Parasitic Ghetto Ethics – which is why their funding will continue to decline. But aside from promoting parasitic ethics, their critique of the state and statists is yeoman’s labor.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-13 03:51:00 UTC
“…The Bill of Rights is a literal and absolute document. The First Amendment doesn’t say you have a right to speak out unless the government has a ‘compelling interest’ in censoring the Internet. The Second Amendment doesn’t say you have the right to keep and bear arms until some madman plants a bomb. The Fourth Amendment doesn’t say you have the right to be secure from search and seizure unless some FBI agent thinks you fit the profile of a terrorist. The government has no right to interfere with any of these freedoms under any circumstances.”
— Harry Browne, 1996 USA presidential candidate,
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-13 03:44:00 UTC
GARGOYLES AND ALL THAT KINDA THING
I’m not too keen on the whole Google Glass thing. On the other hand, if I had a video-enabled bluetooth earpiece, or lapel pin, or a pendant that communicated with my iPhone – and did the same thing, then I’d be perfectly thrilled with it.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-12 16:26:00 UTC
VOICES IN IN YOUR FINGERTIPS
To write strategically, you have to find a voice.
I tried the conciliatory voice (which in politics is foolhardy). The romantic voice. (Which I adore but is very hard to do in analytic language, and sometimes ruins the argument.) The antagonistic voice (which I’m good at but depresses me). The contrarian voice (which I still use now and then because it captures attention.) The ridicule voice (which doesn’t really suit me because ridicule requires lateral thinking that is really unavailable to me as an aspie – and I see ridicule, correctly, as dishonest). And finally settled on the scientific voice with a mix of tactically romantic, heroic and critical positioning.
I’ve been writing long form since I was six years old. I still don’t think I’m a very good writer. Mixing the communicative, the romantic and the analytic is terribly hard, and I haven’t figured out how to do it. Hayek does it best of any modern thinker.
So the trick is that I couldn’t have figured this all out in advance. The point of writing is to write. You can get better at it. But it takes more writing that’s just one word better than the last, than it does trying to write to an abstract model.
One last thing that I can’t emphasize enough. Americans tend to believe in the nonsense of talent. Yes, smarter people are better at most everything, and less so people less good at nearly everything. But extraordinary practice narrows that gap significantly even if cannot narrow it completely. You may possess talent but anything worthwhile to others is obtained by marginally different skill and marginally different skill is obtained through practice and lots of it.
To develop that level of skill, you must love what you do. I would rather write than do almost anything else except maybe drive roadsters on backroads in summer, sing Nirvana or something similar, make an aesthetically interesting dinner for ten, and enjoy good sex. And I”m not sure about the last three. 🙂 But writing used to give me headaches, and I used to struggle so hard with it. Until I understood that the typewriter was my enemy – I was afraid of mistakes. And my handwriting is all but unreadable even to me. Computers changed that for me.
The point being that you have to find the tools that help you master your craft. I”m still amazed at the people who write books by hand -there are plenty of them really. But the old saw that an artist is only as good as his tools, applies to every single discipline.
And the illusion that you’re looking for ways to express your talent is a dangerous idea.
Instead:
1) Work on something that is both rare and fascinates you. Pop nonsense just means you’re too ignorant to find something uncommon but still interesting.
2) Master the subject matter through repetition and investigation and collection of every possible example and detail. Keep a database. I keep an enormous glossary of terms that I try to restate in propertarian language.
3) Play by reorganizing those details into multiple types of organization. This is where you’ll come up with something creative.
4) Find tools that help you overcome your weaknesses, not ‘express your talents’.
5) Then go through and just try test yourself. Now if you’re a nuclear physicist then it’s expensive to run tests. The reason I like philosophy is that my only cost is food, water, and an internet connection. It’s cheap to run tests consisting of arguments.
What I’ve found is that I am not so much a good writer: because good writing requires a lot of empathy for the reader. But I am good at figuring stuff out.
And in politics, the problem we face is figuring stuff out so that we can win arguments and defeat the opposition.
Cheers.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-12 03:34:00 UTC