—“Only the autodidacts are free.”— Nassim Nicholas Taleb, I would never have been ‘permitted’ to develop Propertarianism (Natural Law) in the academy. The simple reasons that (a) interdisciplinary phd’s are nearly impossible, (b) taking 10+ years to solve a hard problem is unacceptable. (c) publishing along the way to a solution only serves to anchor you in a falsehood. (d) the academy forces presumptions (paradigms) that are false due to its market incentives to produce educational products rather than truth (in other than the physical sciences).
Source: Original Site Post
-
—“Only the autodidacts are free.”— Nassim Nicholas Taleb,
—“Only the autodidacts are free.”— Nassim Nicholas Taleb, I would never have been ‘permitted’ to develop Propertarianism (Natural Law) in the academy. The simple reasons that (a) interdisciplinary phd’s are nearly impossible, (b) taking 10+ years to solve a hard problem is unacceptable. (c) publishing along the way to a solution only serves to anchor you in a falsehood. (d) the academy forces presumptions (paradigms) that are false due to its market incentives to produce educational products rather than truth (in other than the physical sciences).
-
How Propertarianism Would Judge Hitler’s Germany’s Relocation Policy
(ANSWER TO A “BAIT POST” – BTW: I BLOCKED THE INDIVIDUAL WHO REQUESTED IT.) SOME RADICAL LEFTIST ASKED ME HOW PROPERTARIANISM WOULD JUDGE HITLER’S GERMANY’S RELOCATION POLICY It was a dishonest attempt to bait hate speech. I don’t do hate speech. Ever. I do Science and Natural Law. Here is the Answer: (a) That high trust is nearly exclusive to the germanic and Japanese peoples, and is their civilization’s competitive advantage. (b) That outside of scientific researchers (scientists) non kin shouldn’t cohabitate in the fist place, because it reduces trust, and creates those exact conditions of conflict. (The upper intellectual classes are more autistic and less dependent upon collective for information, and the lower classes the opposite). (c) That peoples that specialize in rent seeking and profiting from moral hazard in particular shouldn’t be hosted (any more than those dependent upon begging and thievery) because it leads to prosecution, persecution, and at times, extermination – as well as destroying trust and raising costs of policing the commons. (d) That peoples who practice separatism of any kind shouldn’t be tolerated by host societies for those same reasons. (e) That this process of separation, if pursued, should be legislated with a multi-year timeline, later prosecuted for non-compliance, and then subject to Hoppe’s “Forcible Removal”. (f) That the original relocation model, taken from the Soviet Relocations, had been successful there, and truthfully, throughout all human history. (g) That the combination of relocation (forcible removal) and a nearly impossible war was unmanageable. And that they could not fund both. Had they not been pressured by Russia into war, they would have succeeded.
-
How Propertarianism Would Judge Hitler’s Germany’s Relocation Policy
(ANSWER TO A “BAIT POST” – BTW: I BLOCKED THE INDIVIDUAL WHO REQUESTED IT.) SOME RADICAL LEFTIST ASKED ME HOW PROPERTARIANISM WOULD JUDGE HITLER’S GERMANY’S RELOCATION POLICY It was a dishonest attempt to bait hate speech. I don’t do hate speech. Ever. I do Science and Natural Law. Here is the Answer: (a) That high trust is nearly exclusive to the germanic and Japanese peoples, and is their civilization’s competitive advantage. (b) That outside of scientific researchers (scientists) non kin shouldn’t cohabitate in the fist place, because it reduces trust, and creates those exact conditions of conflict. (The upper intellectual classes are more autistic and less dependent upon collective for information, and the lower classes the opposite). (c) That peoples that specialize in rent seeking and profiting from moral hazard in particular shouldn’t be hosted (any more than those dependent upon begging and thievery) because it leads to prosecution, persecution, and at times, extermination – as well as destroying trust and raising costs of policing the commons. (d) That peoples who practice separatism of any kind shouldn’t be tolerated by host societies for those same reasons. (e) That this process of separation, if pursued, should be legislated with a multi-year timeline, later prosecuted for non-compliance, and then subject to Hoppe’s “Forcible Removal”. (f) That the original relocation model, taken from the Soviet Relocations, had been successful there, and truthfully, throughout all human history. (g) That the combination of relocation (forcible removal) and a nearly impossible war was unmanageable. And that they could not fund both. Had they not been pressured by Russia into war, they would have succeeded.
-
He who can destroy a thing, owns a thing- all else is permission
Why do you deserve to share this world with us? He who can destroy a thing, owns a thing- all else is permission. The first question of politics is why I and mine (if we can) do not kill you and yours and take your stuff. The only answer is that it is more beneficial to cooperate. Until it is no longer more beneficial to cooperate.
-
He who can destroy a thing, owns a thing- all else is permission
Why do you deserve to share this world with us? He who can destroy a thing, owns a thing- all else is permission. The first question of politics is why I and mine (if we can) do not kill you and yours and take your stuff. The only answer is that it is more beneficial to cooperate. Until it is no longer more beneficial to cooperate.
-
It Failed Everywhere Else, so….
(((They))) have this strange intuition that what failed in the levant, and has failed everywhere else, will succeed in the west, if (((They))) only remove territorial, normative, and genetic barriers.
-
It Failed Everywhere Else, so….
(((They))) have this strange intuition that what failed in the levant, and has failed everywhere else, will succeed in the west, if (((They))) only remove territorial, normative, and genetic barriers.
-
No, EQ Is Not a Thing, But….
WHEREAS Intelligence is a Thing Personality Traits are a Thing. (Conscientiousness and Agreeableness and Neuroticism in particular) The Solipsism vs Empathy vs Autism spectrum is a Thing. Class Behaviors are a Thing. As such it’s (EQ) a questionable proxy for personality traits rather than intelligence. And (I am in the camp) that we should treat intelligence as a personality trait. AND WHEREAS Higher IQ people are demonstrably more moral than Low IQ people – yes. Although (a) they can afford to be, and (b) they are also less likely to have other defective personality traits and cultural/class behaviors. THEREFORE So the problem is that people who argue scientifically know EQ is not a thing but pseudoscience that attributes an equality to intelligence to behavioral properties, when in general even intelligence should be classified as a personality trait, and it is personality traits in toto that determine behavior. AND THEREFORE So what is going on when we criticize use of EQ, is fighting a common problem we deal with in leftism, whether or not one is actually arguing a leftist position, but using the pseudoscientific language of leftists. IN OTHER WORDS Either learn to use the relevant personality traits or at least recognize you are talking in pseudoscientific nonsense terms. Curt. -
No, EQ Is Not a Thing, But….
WHEREAS Intelligence is a Thing Personality Traits are a Thing. (Conscientiousness and Agreeableness and Neuroticism in particular) The Solipsism vs Empathy vs Autism spectrum is a Thing. Class Behaviors are a Thing. As such it’s (EQ) a questionable proxy for personality traits rather than intelligence. And (I am in the camp) that we should treat intelligence as a personality trait. AND WHEREAS Higher IQ people are demonstrably more moral than Low IQ people – yes. Although (a) they can afford to be, and (b) they are also less likely to have other defective personality traits and cultural/class behaviors. THEREFORE So the problem is that people who argue scientifically know EQ is not a thing but pseudoscience that attributes an equality to intelligence to behavioral properties, when in general even intelligence should be classified as a personality trait, and it is personality traits in toto that determine behavior. AND THEREFORE So what is going on when we criticize use of EQ, is fighting a common problem we deal with in leftism, whether or not one is actually arguing a leftist position, but using the pseudoscientific language of leftists. IN OTHER WORDS Either learn to use the relevant personality traits or at least recognize you are talking in pseudoscientific nonsense terms. Curt.