—“Historically theology has attempted to derive law from moral literature. This fails. It fails because religions evolved to elevate group fitness by any means necessary then justify it post hoc. Even so-called universalist religions do this by dividing the ingroup of the pious from the outgroup of the wicked.”—Micah Pezdirtz
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-27 09:32:00 UTC
IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT WE RELY UPON
—“I am a Catholic Traditionalist and have supported that position for years and indeed that was the subject of said sniping in the past. …. I haven’t converted to Propertarianism. If Propertarianism is currently defined as Latin Christendom but without Christ, it is simply just another Hobbesian, modernist project and therefore I can’t go along with it, just as I could not years ago. I am glad that so much of what I said was agreed with, but that doesn’t mean I am a Propertarian.”—Rik Storey
The Propertarian Institute I didn’t say you were. I said you had converted from sophomoric reasoning to the law and that is all that matters.
Whether you rely upon a divinity, deism, moral rationalism, or the natural laws of the universe for justification, doesn’t matter – groups with different cognitive needs, require different grammars of cognitive expression. But as long as we all pursue the natural law of reciprocity and the christian extension of it to exhaustive forgiveness, we produce western civilization.
As far as I know we will continue to require, supernatural, supernormal, moral-rational, and scientific grammars, and the justification and narrative libertarians and the right require doesn’t matter as long as we have the law of reciprocity, since it is our actions on those terms that make our cognitive differences commensurable.
And yes you got a lot right. Took a few notes. You got weak after a bit, but in general it’s the right structure.
Deliver under caesar truth known, deliver unto god faith in the unknown.
Glad to see you put the book out. Glad to see the improvement in the quality of your thinking.
Cheers.
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-27 08:50:00 UTC
Updated Sep 26, 2019, 9:12 PM
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-26 21:12:00 UTC
Updated Sep 26, 2019, 8:47 PM
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-26 20:47:00 UTC
Updated Sep 26, 2019, 8:41 PM
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-26 20:41:00 UTC
—“People of ability, wealth, and power, naturally generate clusters of common interest which, in the absence of understanding the incentives they operative from, those without ability, wealth, and power conflate and confuse with intention.”—by Bill Joslin
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-26 19:59:00 UTC
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07XXDVVKFBUY IT RIGHT NOW
IT’S $6 Ebook including read in the browser, so buy it. He does a fantastic job. I mean, he cut my work down by a third, I only have to publish the law.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07XXDVVKFUpdated Sep 26, 2019, 6:11 PM
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-26 18:11:00 UTC
MORE ON UNDERSTANDING POWER AND WEALTH
by Michael Churchill
“Eventually, the Marginal Utility of Money Falls to Zero”
Eventually the marginal utility of money falls to zero. (Actually that happens pretty fast.) Then what is the game? What is the point? It has to be about moulding (molding?) the future to your wishes — creating a world that looks the way you want it for your descendants.
It’s a negotiation between rulers — each with his own fiefdom, none of whom NEEDS anything. It becomes Hegelian: People crave, more than anything, the respect of their peers. Respect cannot be bought from people who are already loaded. One has to earn it. Your ideas … your vision … have to square with their vision. You must have a mutually agreed upon view of the world and want to work together to make it happen.
Once you get rich the challenge ceases to be about making money, it becomes figuring out how to shape the world. It’s a whole new set of challenges. Soros was actually pretty eloquent about this problem at one point, before he became who he ultimately became.
(solid gold)
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-26 16:58:00 UTC
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07XXDVVKFKEVIN MACDONALD ON RECIPROCITY (IMPORTANT)
(He got there!!!!)
CHAPTER 2
SECTION: *Reciprocity as a Trait of I-E Culture.*
—“The aristocratic individualism of the PI-Es was based on reciprocity, not despotism or kinship ties. For example, at the heart of PI-E culture was the practice of gift—giving as a reward for military accomplishment. Successful leaders were expected to reward their followers handsomely.
[79] Oath-bound contracts of reciprocal relationships were characteristic of PI-Es and this practice continued with the various I-E groups that invaded Europe. These contracts formed the basis of patron-client relationships based on reputation—leaders could expect loyal service from their followers, and followers could expect equitable rewards for their service to the leader.
This is critical because these relationships are based on talent and accomplishment, not ethnicity (i.e., rewarding people on the basis of closeness of kinship) or despotic subservience (where followers are essentially unfree). Oath-bound contracts were not only typical of the aristocratic individualism of the Mannerbunde: they extended to relationships of domination and subordination between military elites and conquered peoples, providing protection in return for service. In conjunction with the previous points, this is a prescription for feudal-type societies dominated by military elites with mutual obligations to the people they dominate, but in which kinship ties between elites and the people they dominate are relatively unimportant.
Breaking Down Bonds of Kinship. PI-E society developed institutions that tended to break down strong kinship bonds. David Anthony, e.g., writes that Yamnaya cultural practices related to guest-host relationships led in a direction away from kinship toward reciprocity. These reciprocal guest-host relationships “functioned as a bridge between social units (tribes, clans) that had ordinarily restricted these relationships to their kin or co-residents.”[7—1] There were thus mechanisms to provide guest- host relationships beyond kinship where everyone had mutual obligations of hospitality; in a comment illustrating the pervasiveness and longevity of these practices, Anthony notes that this was a “way to incorporate outsiders as people with clearly defined rights and protections, as it was used in the Odyssey to medieval Europe”[72-]— another indication of the persistence of I-E culture over very long periods of historical time.
The Rewards of Military Success. Besides the tangible rewards for success, successful warriors were honored in poetry. Successful leaders not only gave feasts and gifts to their followers, they were celebrated in poetry—their memory lived on long after their death. Odes proclaiming the generosity of patrons were very characteristic of widely dispersed I-E cultures (Vedic, Celtic, Greek, and Germanic), indicating an origin in late Proto-Indo-European.[7-3] As Duchesne emphasizes, at a conscious level, I-E warfare was conducted principally to gain fame and glory—“The fame of a dead man’s deeds.”[7—4] Nevertheless, to the victors remained the very tangible spoils resulting from successful military campaigns.
Indo-Europeanism as a Free-Market, Individualist Culture. For my purposes, it is especially important to note that the military cultures created by the I-Es were permeable—that they were based on individual accomplishment rather than kinship ties. Indeed, I-E societies recognized that kinship biases people’s perceptions and judgments.
[ … ]
As noted, military leaders maintained their position by military success and by bestowing gifts upon their followers, with the most talented followers obtaining the greatest gifts. A corollary of this is that followers chose successful leaders and abandoned unsuccessful leaders. The system functioned more or less as a free-market system based on merit rather than nepotism. As in all free-market systems, the fundamental principle is reciprocity, whether it is giving gifts commensurate with contribution to the exploits of the Mc’innerbund, or, in the modern world, paying employees a wage commensurate with the value they add to the company on pain of defection to another company. And just as companies compete to obtain talented employees in the modern world, I-E military leaders competed to attract a following of talented warriors.
Reciprocity thus lies at the heart of societies
based on individualism.”—
FROM:
Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07XXDVVKFUpdated Sep 26, 2019, 4:56 PM
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-26 16:54:00 UTC
( I love that y’all missed me. 😉 )
lolz
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-26 15:55:00 UTC