Men form packs. The more diverse we are, the more packs with different narrative. It is not rational to ask them to form herds. The narrative they use is irrelevant. The goals they achieve by those narratives must only coincide. As such, the market for pack cooperation need only agree upon POSSIBLE ends, not upon preferred ends or means. Packs (“Units” in military prose) are the optimum order.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Revolutions and The Market for Packs of Men
Men form packs. The more diverse we are, the more packs with different narrative. It is not rational to ask them to form herds. The narrative they use is irrelevant. The goals they achieve by those narratives must only coincide. As such, the market for pack cooperation need only agree upon POSSIBLE ends, not upon preferred ends or means. Packs (“Units” in military prose) are the optimum order.
-
The Propertarian Paradigm of History
1 – THE BRONZE AGE THE BRONZE AGE COLLAPSE (Dark Age 1) 2 – THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN PERIOD THE MEDITERRANEAN (GRECO ROMAN) PERIOD (IRON) ABRAHAMIC (SEMITIC) DARK AGE (Dark Age 2) 3 – CONTINENTAL PERIOD > NORDIC PERIOD > ATLANTIC PERIOD (STEEL) COLONIALISM …. > (FRENCH UNDERCLASS REVOLUTION …. > napoleonic authoritarian monopoly > WW1) > *THE POST WAR PERIOD* …. COMMUNISM ( WW2>COLD WAR (KOREA > VIETNAM > STAR WARS)) >ISLAMISM. THE REBALANCING OF WORLD POWERS PERIOD (TRUMP) … The completion of the second european period. Or…. (Dark Age 3) ??? THE POST WAR ERA From the end of WWI to the fall of the soviet union: the period of international consensus. This covers the period of transition from european colonialism to world consumer capitalism. The world fights the very markets that provide for our prosperity. THE COMMON HISTORIAN PARADIGM I think most historians use the fall of the soviet union in 1992, and I tend to include the conversion of communism to islamism as a continuation of the anti-market consumer capitalism process – one that cannot e solved without repairing arbitrary middle eastern borders. MY PROPERTARIAN PARADIGM (Important) My reading of history is that Marxism>Communism>Islamism constitute the second Semitic Attack on Western Civilization, by an attempt to repeat the means by which the Greco Roman, Persian, Egyptian, North African, and Old European civilizations were destroyed, and converted from aristocratic MARKETS between civilizations to underclass(religious) MONOPOLY that destroyed the growth of those civilizations. ARISTOCRATIC MARKETS, UNDERCLASS MONOPOLY The cycle of history appears to be the entire world of aristocratic and evolutionary markets against the semitic authoritarian devolutionary monopoly.
-
The Propertarian Paradigm of History
1 – THE BRONZE AGE THE BRONZE AGE COLLAPSE (Dark Age 1) 2 – THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN PERIOD THE MEDITERRANEAN (GRECO ROMAN) PERIOD (IRON) ABRAHAMIC (SEMITIC) DARK AGE (Dark Age 2) 3 – CONTINENTAL PERIOD > NORDIC PERIOD > ATLANTIC PERIOD (STEEL) COLONIALISM …. > (FRENCH UNDERCLASS REVOLUTION …. > napoleonic authoritarian monopoly > WW1) > *THE POST WAR PERIOD* …. COMMUNISM ( WW2>COLD WAR (KOREA > VIETNAM > STAR WARS)) >ISLAMISM. THE REBALANCING OF WORLD POWERS PERIOD (TRUMP) … The completion of the second european period. Or…. (Dark Age 3) ??? THE POST WAR ERA From the end of WWI to the fall of the soviet union: the period of international consensus. This covers the period of transition from european colonialism to world consumer capitalism. The world fights the very markets that provide for our prosperity. THE COMMON HISTORIAN PARADIGM I think most historians use the fall of the soviet union in 1992, and I tend to include the conversion of communism to islamism as a continuation of the anti-market consumer capitalism process – one that cannot e solved without repairing arbitrary middle eastern borders. MY PROPERTARIAN PARADIGM (Important) My reading of history is that Marxism>Communism>Islamism constitute the second Semitic Attack on Western Civilization, by an attempt to repeat the means by which the Greco Roman, Persian, Egyptian, North African, and Old European civilizations were destroyed, and converted from aristocratic MARKETS between civilizations to underclass(religious) MONOPOLY that destroyed the growth of those civilizations. ARISTOCRATIC MARKETS, UNDERCLASS MONOPOLY The cycle of history appears to be the entire world of aristocratic and evolutionary markets against the semitic authoritarian devolutionary monopoly.
-
—“Curt, What Is Your Proposal for Government?”–
https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/09/14/perfect-government-2/Great question. PERFECT GOVERNMENT (short) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/09/14/perfect-government-2/ A SHORT COURSE IN PERFECT GOVERNMENT (longer) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/03/30/a-short-course-in-perfect-government/ COMMON QUESTIONS (a) checks and balances are performed via the courts, since individuals and groups can provide suit against anyone whatsoever, in matters private or public. (b) the monarch can only veto. Veto is a simple process and if law is too complicated it’s veto-able on that grounds alone. So there is no need for specific legal skill. We have jurists for that – it’s not like a monarch cannot ask advice. (c) The monarchy in my work is very similar to constitutional monarchy (ceo). Except that they have a lot of intergenerational interests and obligations. (d) commons do not use enumerated shares (quantities). In that sense citizens can never have more than one ‘share’ in the commons. Secondly, like any corporation, common shareholders (citizens) only have certain powers. In our case, it’s the franchise. LAYER 1) RULE OF LAW The Natural Law of Reciprocity. A professional Judiciary (‘judicial priesthood’) LAYER 2) FASCISM (IN TIMES OF WAR) Monarchy Cabinet (Management Team) LAYER 3) REPUBLIC (IN TIMES OF GROWTH) Houses “Juries” for Necessary Commons … Territorial, and of classes. LAYER 4) DIRECT DEMOCRACY (IN TIMES OF WINDFALLS) Direct Choice of Preferential Commons. -
—“Curt, What Is Your Proposal for Government?”–
https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/09/14/perfect-government-2/Great question. PERFECT GOVERNMENT (short) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/09/14/perfect-government-2/ A SHORT COURSE IN PERFECT GOVERNMENT (longer) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/03/30/a-short-course-in-perfect-government/ COMMON QUESTIONS (a) checks and balances are performed via the courts, since individuals and groups can provide suit against anyone whatsoever, in matters private or public. (b) the monarch can only veto. Veto is a simple process and if law is too complicated it’s veto-able on that grounds alone. So there is no need for specific legal skill. We have jurists for that – it’s not like a monarch cannot ask advice. (c) The monarchy in my work is very similar to constitutional monarchy (ceo). Except that they have a lot of intergenerational interests and obligations. (d) commons do not use enumerated shares (quantities). In that sense citizens can never have more than one ‘share’ in the commons. Secondly, like any corporation, common shareholders (citizens) only have certain powers. In our case, it’s the franchise. LAYER 1) RULE OF LAW The Natural Law of Reciprocity. A professional Judiciary (‘judicial priesthood’) LAYER 2) FASCISM (IN TIMES OF WAR) Monarchy Cabinet (Management Team) LAYER 3) REPUBLIC (IN TIMES OF GROWTH) Houses “Juries” for Necessary Commons … Territorial, and of classes. LAYER 4) DIRECT DEMOCRACY (IN TIMES OF WINDFALLS) Direct Choice of Preferential Commons. -
Dunning Kruger Greatest in Ethics, Morality, and Politics
One of the many benefits of technical discourse is that idiots watch but don’t participate. The Dunning Kruger effect in intuitionistic matters is logarithmically greater than technical matters because intuition requires no calculation, and calculation tends to falsify intuition. Meaning idiots presume that their political opinions are somehow more legitimate than their economic, scientific, and mathematical opinions.
-
Dunning Kruger Greatest in Ethics, Morality, and Politics
One of the many benefits of technical discourse is that idiots watch but don’t participate. The Dunning Kruger effect in intuitionistic matters is logarithmically greater than technical matters because intuition requires no calculation, and calculation tends to falsify intuition. Meaning idiots presume that their political opinions are somehow more legitimate than their economic, scientific, and mathematical opinions.
-
More on Non-Hetero Behavior in The Commons as A Matter of Law
There are a number of reasons that I foster these debates on uncomfortable topics. One is to bait the opposition into a debate. Another is to educate via the audience’s reactions. Another is because I am uncertain of my position. 😉 (Never assume you are right. Just try as hard as you can to determine if you’re wrong.) So far I haven’t determined I”m wrong in this matter. In my opinion, the slippery slope exists only because the question was insufficiently settled in law. I know how to solve that problem: to settle it as we do other sexual matters other than mate finding, by prohibiting it from the commons. That still leaves me with the reality that as far as I know the individuals behavior is determined in utero or by trauma. Neither of which (at least in males) are discretionary (unlike body issues, which are co-morbid with other psychological problems.) There is some evidence that female sexuality is extremely plastic as are most female behaviors. So as far as I know the functional test is the body issue not attraction. As such if the display does not make it out of the bedroom, then I do not consider it a matter of law. Since assortative mating is necessary for survival, I consider hetero reproductive signaling as necessary in the commons, up until the point of demonstration. As I have said elsewhere, as a matter of law it is a solved question. As a matter of aesthetics it is a choice. As such it is of course as sensible to create polities that ban individuals based upon traits, just as it is to accept or celebrate individuals upon traits. But that is a preference, not a good or a truth. And should be solved by the market. Thanks as always, for your thoughts and participation. 😉
-
More on Non-Hetero Behavior in The Commons as A Matter of Law
There are a number of reasons that I foster these debates on uncomfortable topics. One is to bait the opposition into a debate. Another is to educate via the audience’s reactions. Another is because I am uncertain of my position. 😉 (Never assume you are right. Just try as hard as you can to determine if you’re wrong.) So far I haven’t determined I”m wrong in this matter. In my opinion, the slippery slope exists only because the question was insufficiently settled in law. I know how to solve that problem: to settle it as we do other sexual matters other than mate finding, by prohibiting it from the commons. That still leaves me with the reality that as far as I know the individuals behavior is determined in utero or by trauma. Neither of which (at least in males) are discretionary (unlike body issues, which are co-morbid with other psychological problems.) There is some evidence that female sexuality is extremely plastic as are most female behaviors. So as far as I know the functional test is the body issue not attraction. As such if the display does not make it out of the bedroom, then I do not consider it a matter of law. Since assortative mating is necessary for survival, I consider hetero reproductive signaling as necessary in the commons, up until the point of demonstration. As I have said elsewhere, as a matter of law it is a solved question. As a matter of aesthetics it is a choice. As such it is of course as sensible to create polities that ban individuals based upon traits, just as it is to accept or celebrate individuals upon traits. But that is a preference, not a good or a truth. And should be solved by the market. Thanks as always, for your thoughts and participation. 😉