Anarcho – *(Rothbard, Hoppe) = at best, discretionary poly-logical, market law. And therefore is limited to defense of intersubjectively verifiable property; since law can only form as such at the minimum tolerable scope of application. Just as the church majority parasites then, the state parasites, left parasites, and immigrant parasites, in group feminists, and in group libertines today and the abrahamists in all their forms, more people always want to preserve their means of cheating (parasitism) than want to suppress them – despite all evidence that the forgone parasitisms produce multiples of returns far beyond their individual abilities to produce such returns. This is why Anarchism cannot survive – because as the complexity of cooperation increases to produce higher returns, individuals and groups must exit in order to find insurers (governments) that permit the more productive, higher risk, means of production.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Anarchism cannot survive
Anarcho – *(Rothbard, Hoppe) = at best, discretionary poly-logical, market law. And therefore is limited to defense of intersubjectively verifiable property; since law can only form as such at the minimum tolerable scope of application. Just as the church majority parasites then, the state parasites, left parasites, and immigrant parasites, in group feminists, and in group libertines today and the abrahamists in all their forms, more people always want to preserve their means of cheating (parasitism) than want to suppress them – despite all evidence that the forgone parasitisms produce multiples of returns far beyond their individual abilities to produce such returns. This is why Anarchism cannot survive – because as the complexity of cooperation increases to produce higher returns, individuals and groups must exit in order to find insurers (governments) that permit the more productive, higher risk, means of production.
-
The Incentive for Marriage Restored.
|COURTS:| Criminal > Civil > Familial > Comercial > Civic > National. The family is the smallest corporation with the least assets, and the problem with family court is not a separate court for adjudication of differences in those corporations we call the family, but the notion of common property and the proposition that and interdependency can survive ending of that corporation. Ergo, no alimony, child support, and children to the mother and young adults from 12 to the father – pending the discretion of the child. Lets remember that men with children remarry, while women with children tend to circumvent marriage because they can use children for spousal substitution, and cannot bear compromise or competition in a new household where she must adapt her intuitions. When the corporation ends, it ends. And each party negotiates a new inter-gender organization. Or not. Hence the incentive for marriage is restored.
-
The Incentive for Marriage Restored.
|COURTS:| Criminal > Civil > Familial > Comercial > Civic > National. The family is the smallest corporation with the least assets, and the problem with family court is not a separate court for adjudication of differences in those corporations we call the family, but the notion of common property and the proposition that and interdependency can survive ending of that corporation. Ergo, no alimony, child support, and children to the mother and young adults from 12 to the father – pending the discretion of the child. Lets remember that men with children remarry, while women with children tend to circumvent marriage because they can use children for spousal substitution, and cannot bear compromise or competition in a new household where she must adapt her intuitions. When the corporation ends, it ends. And each party negotiates a new inter-gender organization. Or not. Hence the incentive for marriage is restored.
-
—“What do you use as a basis for your research?”— A Friend
—“What do you use as a basis for your research?”— A Friend Maybe I don’t understand the question…. I mean. I have a very deliberate methodology. Mostly the history of (a) group competitive strategies, (b) geography (c) economics, (d) political orders, (e) laws, (f) methods of argument (grammars). And I use propertarianism (Vitruvianism, Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, Testimonialism, and Natural Law) to perform the analysis. The difficult part of the work is deflating history into Propertarian terms so that all group actions are commensurable. This often requires attacking a proposition until only the truth (in Testimonial terms) remains. And in particular attacking most sacred presumptions and values. And that takes a great deal of time. I have to work long enough that I’ve defeated my own biases as best I can as well. In other words I look at the actions ( inputs, operations, and outputs) not the excuses (what people say about them), and explain the world as the different tactics we use to acquire. The methodology is something I understand very well. Unfortunately it is rather difficult to possess sufficient knowledge to employ it. As such it’s just as hard as any of the other sciences.
-
—“What do you use as a basis for your research?”— A Friend
—“What do you use as a basis for your research?”— A Friend Maybe I don’t understand the question…. I mean. I have a very deliberate methodology. Mostly the history of (a) group competitive strategies, (b) geography (c) economics, (d) political orders, (e) laws, (f) methods of argument (grammars). And I use propertarianism (Vitruvianism, Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, Testimonialism, and Natural Law) to perform the analysis. The difficult part of the work is deflating history into Propertarian terms so that all group actions are commensurable. This often requires attacking a proposition until only the truth (in Testimonial terms) remains. And in particular attacking most sacred presumptions and values. And that takes a great deal of time. I have to work long enough that I’ve defeated my own biases as best I can as well. In other words I look at the actions ( inputs, operations, and outputs) not the excuses (what people say about them), and explain the world as the different tactics we use to acquire. The methodology is something I understand very well. Unfortunately it is rather difficult to possess sufficient knowledge to employ it. As such it’s just as hard as any of the other sciences.
-
The Herd All Speaks the Same Language. the Packs Don’t.
The more left(feminine) we intuit the more we seek conformity with the herd. The more right (masculine) we intuit, the more we seek allies in a pack. Furthermore we choose our pack leaders, and we choose our packs, and our pack propaganda (signaling) and strategy (directness) by what we perceive as actionable and voluntary. And as such we form packs by class, and by class within age groups although they appear to be only younger(direct and tactical) and older(indirect and strategic) – as our energies (direct) and experience (indirect) warrant But whereas the left can be opportunistic, and the herd will follow opportunities. The right can be opportunistic, but will seize fewer opportunities, requiring more momentum and urgency for critical mass. And whereas the left herd follows opportunities they are opportunities against the right. Whereas the right packs seek only those opportunities to resist the left’s parasitism. So this is why I am still struggling with the Natsoc, WN, working classes – and for no reason. They need an opportunity to obtain what they want. But they can do nothing other than fight. So we are in a much harder position than the left. We are operating from a position of defense, and we have a harder time pulling together enough allies on critical mass, unless there is an event that provides possible movement for all. The herd all speaks the same language. The packs don’t.
-
The Herd All Speaks the Same Language. the Packs Don’t.
The more left(feminine) we intuit the more we seek conformity with the herd. The more right (masculine) we intuit, the more we seek allies in a pack. Furthermore we choose our pack leaders, and we choose our packs, and our pack propaganda (signaling) and strategy (directness) by what we perceive as actionable and voluntary. And as such we form packs by class, and by class within age groups although they appear to be only younger(direct and tactical) and older(indirect and strategic) – as our energies (direct) and experience (indirect) warrant But whereas the left can be opportunistic, and the herd will follow opportunities. The right can be opportunistic, but will seize fewer opportunities, requiring more momentum and urgency for critical mass. And whereas the left herd follows opportunities they are opportunities against the right. Whereas the right packs seek only those opportunities to resist the left’s parasitism. So this is why I am still struggling with the Natsoc, WN, working classes – and for no reason. They need an opportunity to obtain what they want. But they can do nothing other than fight. So we are in a much harder position than the left. We are operating from a position of defense, and we have a harder time pulling together enough allies on critical mass, unless there is an event that provides possible movement for all. The herd all speaks the same language. The packs don’t.
-
Adding Gould and Lewontin to ‘The List’ of Boas, Marx, Freud, Adorno, Mises, Rothbard.
—“Lewontin and Gould were Marxist biologists who were so shameless about their ideology shaping their research that even left-leaning colleagues like Dawkins called them out.”— Matthew GenackLewontin: ‘greater variation within than across groups’ Gould: ‘mismeasure of man – cranium size is irrelevant’ What is “Lewontin’s Fallacy”? By Justin Smith, PhD Genetics and Heredity, Stanford University (2016) This is copied directly from Wikipedia but I think explains it well. Basically Lewontin’s argument was that because common genetic variation varies more between individuals than between races, race/ethnicitiy doesn’t really mean anything biologically, and that races/ethnicities aren’t real genetic categories. Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin’s Fallacy “Lewontin’s argument In the 1972 study “The Apportionment of Human Diversity”, Richard Lewontin performed a fixation index (FST) statistical analysis using 17 markers, including blood group proteins, from individuals across classically defined “races” (Caucasian, African, Mongoloid, South Asian Aborigines, Amerinds, Oceanians, and, Australian Aborigines). He found that the majority of the total genetic variation between humans (i.e., of the 0.1% of DNA that varies between individuals), 85.4%, is found within populations, 8.3% of the variation is found between populations within a “race”, and only 6.3% was found to account for the racial classification. Numerous later studies have confirmed his findings.[5] Based on this analysis, Lewontin concluded, “Since such racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance either, no justification can be offered for its continuance.” This argument has been cited as evidence that racial categories are biologically meaningless, and that behavioral differences between groups cannot have any genetic underpinnings.[6] One example is the “Statement on ‘Race’” published by the American Anthropological Association in 1998, which rejected the existence of races as unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups.[7] Edwards’ critique: Edwards argued that while Lewontin’s statements on variability are correct when examining the frequency of different alleles (variants of a particular gene) at an individual locus (the location of a particular gene) between individuals, it is nonetheless possible to classify individuals into different racial groups with an accuracy that approaches 100 percent when one takes into account the frequency of the alleles at several loci at the same time. This happens because differences in the frequency of alleles at different loci are correlated across populations — the alleles that are more frequent in a population at two or more loci are correlated when we consider the two populations simultaneously. Or in other words, the frequency of the alleles tends to cluster differently for different populations.[8] In Edwards’s words, “most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data.” These relationships can be extracted using commonly used ordination and cluster analysis techniques. Edwards argued that, even if the probability of misclassifying an individual based on the frequency of alleles at a single locus is as high as 30 percent (as Lewontin reported in 1972), the misclassification probability becomes close to zero if enough loci are studied.[9] Edwards’s paper stated that the underlying logic was discussed in the early years of the 20th century. Edwards wrote that he and Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza had presented a contrasting analysis to Lewontin’s, using very similar data, already at the 1963 International Congress of Genetics. Lewontin participated in the conference but did not refer to this in his later paper. Edwards argued that Lewontin used his analysis to attack human classification in science for social reasons.[9]” There are also real traits that vary a lot my ethnicity. Another argument against the Lewontin’s argument has to with rare or functional variation. For example sickle cell anemia is much more prevalent in subsaharan african populations than in the rest of the human population, and cystic fibrosis is much more prevalent in european populations than in the rest of the world.
-
Adding Gould and Lewontin to ‘The List’ of Boas, Marx, Freud, Adorno, Mises, Rothbard.
—“Lewontin and Gould were Marxist biologists who were so shameless about their ideology shaping their research that even left-leaning colleagues like Dawkins called them out.”— Matthew GenackLewontin: ‘greater variation within than across groups’ Gould: ‘mismeasure of man – cranium size is irrelevant’ What is “Lewontin’s Fallacy”? By Justin Smith, PhD Genetics and Heredity, Stanford University (2016) This is copied directly from Wikipedia but I think explains it well. Basically Lewontin’s argument was that because common genetic variation varies more between individuals than between races, race/ethnicitiy doesn’t really mean anything biologically, and that races/ethnicities aren’t real genetic categories. Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin’s Fallacy “Lewontin’s argument In the 1972 study “The Apportionment of Human Diversity”, Richard Lewontin performed a fixation index (FST) statistical analysis using 17 markers, including blood group proteins, from individuals across classically defined “races” (Caucasian, African, Mongoloid, South Asian Aborigines, Amerinds, Oceanians, and, Australian Aborigines). He found that the majority of the total genetic variation between humans (i.e., of the 0.1% of DNA that varies between individuals), 85.4%, is found within populations, 8.3% of the variation is found between populations within a “race”, and only 6.3% was found to account for the racial classification. Numerous later studies have confirmed his findings.[5] Based on this analysis, Lewontin concluded, “Since such racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance either, no justification can be offered for its continuance.” This argument has been cited as evidence that racial categories are biologically meaningless, and that behavioral differences between groups cannot have any genetic underpinnings.[6] One example is the “Statement on ‘Race’” published by the American Anthropological Association in 1998, which rejected the existence of races as unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups.[7] Edwards’ critique: Edwards argued that while Lewontin’s statements on variability are correct when examining the frequency of different alleles (variants of a particular gene) at an individual locus (the location of a particular gene) between individuals, it is nonetheless possible to classify individuals into different racial groups with an accuracy that approaches 100 percent when one takes into account the frequency of the alleles at several loci at the same time. This happens because differences in the frequency of alleles at different loci are correlated across populations — the alleles that are more frequent in a population at two or more loci are correlated when we consider the two populations simultaneously. Or in other words, the frequency of the alleles tends to cluster differently for different populations.[8] In Edwards’s words, “most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data.” These relationships can be extracted using commonly used ordination and cluster analysis techniques. Edwards argued that, even if the probability of misclassifying an individual based on the frequency of alleles at a single locus is as high as 30 percent (as Lewontin reported in 1972), the misclassification probability becomes close to zero if enough loci are studied.[9] Edwards’s paper stated that the underlying logic was discussed in the early years of the 20th century. Edwards wrote that he and Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza had presented a contrasting analysis to Lewontin’s, using very similar data, already at the 1963 International Congress of Genetics. Lewontin participated in the conference but did not refer to this in his later paper. Edwards argued that Lewontin used his analysis to attack human classification in science for social reasons.[9]” There are also real traits that vary a lot my ethnicity. Another argument against the Lewontin’s argument has to with rare or functional variation. For example sickle cell anemia is much more prevalent in subsaharan african populations than in the rest of the human population, and cystic fibrosis is much more prevalent in european populations than in the rest of the world.