http://memolition.com/2013/12/12/maps-of-seven-deadly-sins-in-america/GERMANS ARE LESS VIOLENT, BLACKS AND HISPANICS MORE VIOLENT. ANGLOS IN THE MIDDLE.
That’s what this map shows. Blue areas are people of german descent.
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-15 13:53:00 UTC
WHY THE GOVERNMENT ‘DOESN’T WORK’
(cross posted for future reference)
FACTS
0) The government doesn’t work because it was designed for extended, related families with similar interests, not an empire over those lacking similar interests – particularly interests in reproductive structure (family structure), where the absolute nuclear family of the English is eugenic, and the traditional and inbred family is dysgenic. There is no possible means of reconciling these differences in strategies and their corresponding moral codes.
1) Democracy (Majority Rule) is a monopolistic form of government, not a pluralistic, or competitive. Given any diversity of opinion, there is no means for both sides to win. Unlike the market, where all participants can win.
2) Democratic voting can only solve a problem of selecting priorities among a body with similar interests. Democracy cannot be used to select between opposing interests. As such democracy, as was intended, is a means for a homogenous people to select priorities, peacefully rotate power, and suppress dissenters.
4) The american experiment, was an attempt to create an aristocracy of everyone – or at least everyone who ran a small business or more (a farm). It was a commercial entrepreneur’s dream. This strategy worked for a long time, because immigrants desired land, and would leave traditional family structures behind, come to the states, adopt the nuclear family out of necessity as well as cultural norm, and
5) The Northern european high trust absolute nuclear family model cannot survive in a heterogeneous polity. It never could. We did a pretty good job with the massive post civil war to great depression era of immigration, by using a large, conquered continent, and forcible indoctrination in to the culture. But we reversed that necessity of conformity within two generations. And by 1963, the combination of racial tensions, feminism, the new proletarians joining the work force, the postwar soldiers in little pink houses, and temporary peak in earning potential by proletarians because of the collapse of the world economy during the wars.
Our culture, as predicted at the time, did not survive that immigration and attack on our institutions. It was an interesting period in human history. But a unique social model of the North Sea People (british) and a unique period in time (collapse of european civilization) did not create a new norm. Just a short period where everything was in our favor.
6) Family structure and origin determine morals and political preference. The more inbred a polity (the more outbred the families in it) the more homogenous it is. The more inbred the families are and the less outbred the polity is, the more demand for state intervention to compensate for moral and ethical differences.
The problem we have today, is that very soon the majority of americans will come from diverse, single parent families. And the majority of wealthy americans will come from homogenous, two parent families. And, as you can see in the voting pattern, what’s happening, is that white married voters are objecting to rents to support single voters.
I don’t see this changing any time soon. And this diversity of moral and financial interests is too diverse to tolerate. It may be possible to use totalitarianism to destroy the family entirely, but we can measure the impact of that at present, and no society can tolerate it.
CLOSING
I don’t know which way this future will fall,. But I do know that it is not possible, purely on incentives, for the high trust high performance society to exist without the nuclear family. We are riding on our history now, but that history will be spent within the next generation.
– Post Script –
One not so subtle point.
Voluntary associations only occur where trust is high because of a homogeneity of values (interests). Civic voluntary associations of any scale only occur where the population is outbred and relies on nuclear families. Wherever diversity is present, demand for government rapidly increases due to irresolvable conflicts between interests, and irresolvable conflicts between implied allocations of property rights between the individual, family and commons.
So, while it is true to say, as you have (and do often and well) that Voluntary Associations are superior to bureaucratic associations. Or, as the Ancap’s argue, that consumer associations functioning as competing insurance agencies, are superior to bureaucratic associations. One can argue that incommensurability of values in a heterogeneous population can only be solved by bureaucratic tyranny. And in fact, on commensurability alone (the ability to resolve conflict rationally) it is hard to defeat this argument.
As such, it is not sufficient to state that voluntary associations are preferable to the bureaucracy. Or that consumer associations (insurance agencies) are preferable to the bureaucracy. Unless we first grasp that heterogeneity forces bureaucracy, and homogeneity encourages if not forces, voluntary association.
This is of course, contrary to libertarian doctrine. But then, libertarian doctrine in this matter is rational, and not empirical. And empirically, libertarian doctrine is false.
Diversity is possible under private monarchies because no one has access to power. This is perhaps the often lost genius of the Manorial system: without access to power, groups must compete in the market for goods and services for their signals, rather than compete in the government for rents.
So recommending voluntary associations without first recommending the homogeneous normative environment necessary for voluntary associations is either misleading, self destructive or error.
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-15 12:55:00 UTC
THE COMPACTNESS OF A THEORY : PROPERTY
Compactness of any theory, is not necessarily a virtue for the purpose of communication. Some theories can only be expressed in the form of a novel, and then via some shorthand reference to the arc of the narrative. Darwin’s evolution is an example of a shorthand that still has not managed to penetrate human cognitive biases: After all, evolution favors complexity within a niche, but not in the direction of anything.
I am naturally wordy because I am obsessed with a certain kind of perceptive precision as guarantee against misinterpretation. I would rather lose the reader, than marginally move him, albeit in the wrong direction. I am still torn, but my experience is, that people begin to grasp my work this way without making early judgements.
I started out with Propertarianism in narrative form, as a new parable for conservatism. And I have reduced it to a limited grammar and terminology. And now am engaged in narrowing Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics and Politics, into a very small number of rules, based upon the necessity of calculation – where I mean calculation in the broadest sense of defining differences.
Compactness matters because it reduces your possibility of error. Intelligibility is more a problem for the reader. For the author of any theory, the expression of that theory in terms least open to misinterpretation, and your work most open to testing.
A compact argument with vast explanatory power is the holy grail.
Property, and Propertarianism, are that missing grail. And with property under propertarianism, we possess a set of technologies capable of expressing and clarifying, not only logic (reason), but mathematics (relations), physics (causes) and economics (actions).
I care a bit more about knowing this than I care about anyone else knowing it. But that’s selfish. 🙂 So I will continue to improve it, and publish my work.
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-15 12:24:00 UTC
-WEAPONIZE OUR AESTHETICS-
Brilliant.
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-15 11:58:00 UTC
Sigh… Entrepreneurship is the only way I can support my philosophy habit.
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-15 10:42:00 UTC
INTERESTING THOUGHT ON THE FUTURE
We know that the vast majority of people rebel against operational language, science, liberty, property rights, risks to their identity and status. We know, as my friend Adam Voight keeps reminding me, that meritocracy is painful for those who can’t or dont’ desire to compete in it. And that they need a way out.
Now, if property rights basically forbid free riding and rent seeking, and forbid illusions about our value to others. If propertarian and praxeological language forbid or ability to steal by political means. If Science and naturalistic philosophy forbid our ability to lie to ourselves to seek comfort. If even MORE property is transferred from material to abstract objects, thereby prohibiting theft. If governments can see into every aspect of our lives, and forbid us our vents. IF rather than just prevent the vent of violence. What if governments prevent the vent of self deception? If.. they cause us to confront reality, absent all the comforting lies we tell each other?
I can’t believe that this state of affairs is possible. I only believe that the government bureaucracy will profit from trying to MAKE it possible.
And I think I know what that means.
It is an interesting way to look at what a polity will tolerate.
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-15 10:31:00 UTC
WHOEVER TOLD ME ABOUT 20K IU VITAMIN D, THANK YOU
Sleep is…. a wholly different experience. 🙂 Yummy.
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-15 08:34:00 UTC
WHY DID ICELAND DO IT RIGHT? A CRITIQUE OF CORPORATISM VS CAPITALISM
Because capitalism requires, and is defined by, the fact that risk takers both win and lose, and they bear the burdens of both their wins and losses.
There is nothing in capitalism that supports the privatizing of social gains, or the socialization of private losses. That isn’t CAPITALISM. That’s state CORPORATISM. The alliance between the state and the capitalists, AGAINST the general population.
Without the counter-incentive of risk, only totalitarianism of rules and regulations can attempt to control natural human behavior to socialize risk and privatize reward. That is what free riding and rent seeking do.
The purpose of competition in the market is to reward consumers by way of a competition between lenders, producers, distributors, and vendors. Whenever a competition exists, at least one party loses, but that is never the consumer – who always benefits. This is the most elegant form of redistribution ever created by man. It is a virtuous cycle.
But if the state INSURES COMPETITORS, it breaks the virtuous cycle, and provides incentives for competitors to privatize gains, and to socialize losses.
When you create debt of any kind, you are not in the clear with the profits until the debt is paid off. That is, you have earned only the right to USE the income from that debt, but it is not YOURS until the debt is paid off.
This is counter to human loss aversion instincts. In our emotional machinery between our ears, we own what we have. But that is not true, and cannot be. A debt and corresponding credit function as a production cycle. The good is not MADE until it is paid off.
Our legal system does not recognize this liability and that is why we fail to correctly adjudicate credit and debt, and why we fail to correctly implement policy to protect consumers and hold lenders accountable.
The reason is quite simple: the state is trying to put credit out there all the time in every way possible so that it creates employment and taxes from employment.
But the production cycles are lost in a sea of confusion and this immeasurable distortion in information is inconceivably complex, and impossible for economists to tease from the data.
The left’s proposition is that ‘it will all work out’. The right’s proposition is that we are undermining the entire SCIENTIFIC nature of the anglo model of economy we call capitalism.
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-15 07:55:00 UTC
ON FEMINIST (female), POSTMODERN(male), SOCIALIST PHILOSOPHY
Creating a polity by words for the purpose of rent-seeking and free riding.
Feminist Philosophy questions the foundations of ETHICS, not LOGIC. And that Feminist Rhetoric, with whom Postmodern, Totalitarian, and Socialist authors share identical tactics:
1) the purpose of their language:is not to construct categories which can be measured, but to conflate categories so that they cannot be measured. This is perhaps the most important insight that we can use to deflate totalitarian claims. The attempt to claim a group where there is diversity, in an attempt to seek rents and free ride.
2) is to create ‘unity’ or ‘group’ out of involuntary participants in that group, by loading, overloading, framing, shaming, and obscuring the differences between individuals. The purpose of this unity is so that feminists can seek extractive policies by the state, against individuals outside their group. In other words so that women can seek free riding and rents on males.
3) While it is true that in the workplace, in the aggregate, men and women are equally productive, the statement is an artifact of above-said logic of aggregation: the fact is, that 1% of people, produce almost all the material value in a society, 10% apply those insights, and another 10% communicate them effectively to all others. This is why the Pareto Rule applies to all human behavior: 20% of people own and do everything. The rest are engaged in production and consumption. And they must be. Because they can’d do anything else. And the data is the data, the upper ten percent is dominated by males, because males dominate the upper regions of intelligence by no less than four to one. Female solipsistic reasoning is solipsistic and nothing more.
4) THE PURPOSE OF FEMINIST LOGIC IS TO LIE. While I tend to keep track of feminist writing, because much of it is interesting, the fact is that women are biased much more solipsistic, just as men are biased much more autistic. And the division of knowledge and labor is painful for many women who feel isolated and unable to function in the division of knowledge and labor. Philosophy in the pursuit of truth is one thing. It is a precursor to measurement, and therefore the precursor to science. Philosophy in the pursuit of feeling better about the world we live in is something else: religion. I don’t criticize religion, simply because we ARE unequal, and I don’t feel it is my right to deny people solace. However, religion is not science, it does not correspond to reality, and we must, in science, commerce, and politics, correspond to the constraints that reality places upon us.
I wish I was six inches taller. I’m not. I can’t play basketball. I wish a lot of the time, my Aspiness wasn’t such a burden for me to constantly carry. I wish I hadn’t been born into a family with so many internal problems. I wish I hadn’t lost my first three fortunes, and each time had to make a new one.
Fantasies are fantasies. And fantasies have no place in economics and politics. We all live better lives because of science, economics and those aspects of politics that are scientific: the common law. Religions are not scientific.
Feminist philosophy as put forth in this article is just another secular religion of totalitarianism like postmodern and socialist influences that it draws from.
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-15 07:43:00 UTC
http://www.policymic.com/articles/76565/which-american-english-do-you-speak-this-map-shows-the-dialects-of-the-usaONE MORE MAP FOR THE CONQUERED “NATIONS” OF AMERICA
How the empire rules us all.
“One government to rule them all.
One government to tax and fine them.
One government to bring them all,
And in tyranny, bind them.”
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-15 07:09:00 UTC