(Re: https://theihs.org/seminars-conferences/policy-research-seminars/new-tech/) I think it’s nonsense. Economics is a very immature, that by accident of history has had an opportunity to replace property, law, reciprocity, and markets as the western means of government – because of the world wars, and the destruction of the traditional european order of small state monarchies with houses as markets for the commons, all under traditional common law of torts (reciprocity). All immature sciences have been problematic due to human rush to judgement and over enthusiastic use of new insights to gain advantages over others. Marxism, scientific socialism, keynesian monetarism, feminism, postmodernism are all attempts to use the violence of government to extract from others by force as a means of circumventing traditional exchanges between the classes – producing predictable results. Economics is repairable just as all sciences are repairable. Economics is rife with cherry-picking the way that social science is rife with attribution bias. ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Social_biases ) The Human desire that economic science advance their interests in politics is prohibitable. But the MATERIAL differences between the genders, classes, and sub-races is not ‘fixable’, other than by small-state nationalism, because all the alternatives -searching for equality- eventually result in castes(hinduism/brazil) or imperial tribalism(islam). And they must. Because no polity can survive competition for leadership without dependence upon its upper classes. So the problem was not economics, but the REPLACEMENT of rule of law, markets for exchanges of commons between the classes, with monopoly government using pseudoscientific methods of measurement to impose a war of transfers upon the classes – each of which rebels against it. May 19, 2018 11:21am
Source: Original Site Post
-
The Problem Isn”t Tech It’s Government Usurpation of Judgement Over the Commons
—“Technology explodes the prevalence of externalities–not just the frequency, but also the variety. The faster the pace of technological evolution, the more urgent the need to develop better and better systems of accounting for externalities, and mechanisms for adequately imposing costs on those who generate them.”— Skinner Layne I would state it as wealth from technology makes it cheap to explore our differences and export externalities, for the simple reason that there is a delay between our development of any technology, the discovery of externalities, and the production of prohibitions on the actions that produce those (negative) externalities. And that the reason is government usurpation of our rights to use the courts to defend the commons as well as private and semi-private property. The wealthier we get the easier it is to use the courts and private interests to police innovations and externalities produced by them. The problem isn’t tech, or fear of tech, but that we have no systematic means of acting to constrain externalities in the commons because government has taken from us that role.
-
The Problem Isn”t Tech It’s Government Usurpation of Judgement Over the Commons
—“Technology explodes the prevalence of externalities–not just the frequency, but also the variety. The faster the pace of technological evolution, the more urgent the need to develop better and better systems of accounting for externalities, and mechanisms for adequately imposing costs on those who generate them.”— Skinner Layne I would state it as wealth from technology makes it cheap to explore our differences and export externalities, for the simple reason that there is a delay between our development of any technology, the discovery of externalities, and the production of prohibitions on the actions that produce those (negative) externalities. And that the reason is government usurpation of our rights to use the courts to defend the commons as well as private and semi-private property. The wealthier we get the easier it is to use the courts and private interests to police innovations and externalities produced by them. The problem isn’t tech, or fear of tech, but that we have no systematic means of acting to constrain externalities in the commons because government has taken from us that role.
-
We Are the Gods
—“Alexander looked out upon the breadth of his domain and wept, for there were no more worlds to conquer.”– I look out upon the universe and say “We few are the gods who shall conquer it, bend it to our will, and make a paradise of it.”
-
We Are the Gods
—“Alexander looked out upon the breadth of his domain and wept, for there were no more worlds to conquer.”– I look out upon the universe and say “We few are the gods who shall conquer it, bend it to our will, and make a paradise of it.”
-
Sociopaths and Hate vs Natural Law and Love
So apparently my favorite sociopath is upset that I’m referring to him as my favorite sociopath. I mean, he’s indeed my favorite sociopath. Not that, you know, I know any others. So, it’s not like I have a lot of sociopaths to choose from. You know, there is room for religion, especially for the disaffected that need it. There is room for occult for the broken who need it. There is room for literary utopias for the weak that needed. There is room for propaganda for the insecure that need it. Men form tribes. It’s in our nature. We want as little difference between ourselves and our leaders as possible. But not all men will find truth is enough for them. Why? Because the Truth has no mercy for the self that lacks agency. And the weak of mind, of emotion, of intelligence, and of body are The question is, can those so weak that they cannot bear the Truth rule? It’s not whether they can fight. Sure they can fight. So can a dog. We can train any domesticated animal to fight. It’s whether they can rule. Whether they can be trusted. Whether you want a faction of the weak to deal with after you succeed. And most importantly, whether you want a faction that the vastness of humanity justifiably hates, providing an excuse for resistance. It is one thing to restore our faith in our superiority, our ancestral values: Excellence, Truth, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Markets, and the Domestication of the Animal Man, and our Transcendence into the gods we imagine. The reason being that in the end result it will not only achieve those values but will produce a better more prosperous and rewarding order for all humanity. It is another thing to think hate, a network of justificationary excuses, ritualized superstition, or fantasy literature is the solution to anything other than perpetual little echo-chamber tribes ginning up the courage to talk with one another but providing no solution by which millions, tens of millions, or even billions can rally. Excellence, Truth, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Markets, The domestication of the animal man, requires nothing other than the natural law of reciprocity, nations that can customize their commons to the needs of their members, houses for the classes for the production of commons, an independent judiciary, and an intergenerational hereditary monarchy as a judge of last resort. There is nothing but love for mankind in reciprocity, and an intolerance for free riding, parasitism, predation upon others. Let a thousand nations bloom. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine.
-
Sociopaths and Hate vs Natural Law and Love
So apparently my favorite sociopath is upset that I’m referring to him as my favorite sociopath. I mean, he’s indeed my favorite sociopath. Not that, you know, I know any others. So, it’s not like I have a lot of sociopaths to choose from. You know, there is room for religion, especially for the disaffected that need it. There is room for occult for the broken who need it. There is room for literary utopias for the weak that needed. There is room for propaganda for the insecure that need it. Men form tribes. It’s in our nature. We want as little difference between ourselves and our leaders as possible. But not all men will find truth is enough for them. Why? Because the Truth has no mercy for the self that lacks agency. And the weak of mind, of emotion, of intelligence, and of body are The question is, can those so weak that they cannot bear the Truth rule? It’s not whether they can fight. Sure they can fight. So can a dog. We can train any domesticated animal to fight. It’s whether they can rule. Whether they can be trusted. Whether you want a faction of the weak to deal with after you succeed. And most importantly, whether you want a faction that the vastness of humanity justifiably hates, providing an excuse for resistance. It is one thing to restore our faith in our superiority, our ancestral values: Excellence, Truth, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Markets, and the Domestication of the Animal Man, and our Transcendence into the gods we imagine. The reason being that in the end result it will not only achieve those values but will produce a better more prosperous and rewarding order for all humanity. It is another thing to think hate, a network of justificationary excuses, ritualized superstition, or fantasy literature is the solution to anything other than perpetual little echo-chamber tribes ginning up the courage to talk with one another but providing no solution by which millions, tens of millions, or even billions can rally. Excellence, Truth, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Markets, The domestication of the animal man, requires nothing other than the natural law of reciprocity, nations that can customize their commons to the needs of their members, houses for the classes for the production of commons, an independent judiciary, and an intergenerational hereditary monarchy as a judge of last resort. There is nothing but love for mankind in reciprocity, and an intolerance for free riding, parasitism, predation upon others. Let a thousand nations bloom. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine.
-
Upgrade Cycle of Movements – Including Ours.
You know when you’ve been out of college a while and you realize you need to upgrade friends? I mean, they got you to this point, and maybe there is a keeper in there, but you really need to upgrade to people who more share your career, family, or lifestyle? Businesses go through a similar cycle, of selling to whomever they can get, to those who others don’t serve well, to those that are mainstream, to depending on their best customers, and if possible they shoot for ferrari-gucci territory of specializing in the pure signal market. Movements go through very similar evolutions. You start with the fringe because they’re the extreme novelty seekers. The fringe spreads your message to those seeking to augment their own novelties. Those spread to those seeking ideas. To those that are searching for solutions. To those that want a solution to rally around. What we fail to mention is that we must rid ourselves of people who might be a drag on the next market. And this is sometimes painful. Some people cannot follow. Some have followed enough. Some can follow, some drive, and some lead it. And if you are lucky you develop a group that leads it in different directions (I think that’s us) rather than tries to maintain control of it (as did NRx). Furthermore, there are people you must very clearly disassociate yourself, your business, or your movement from, because their desires for attention, influence, and control ( or to divide, or undermine ) your ability to gain the next more advantageous market. Most of you know how I work – very ‘thoroughly’ – by immersing myself in a subject, tearing it apart, and rebuilding what I can from the few grains of truth I found. I then use established groups as test subjects and attack those ideas – because the very passionate defend them intensely. If you are of a certain mind this can be fascinating to watch. If you are of other minds, this can be upsetting. But it is science at its best: exhaustive reduction to operational language. Over the past few days I’ve been working at making some very clear distinctions, and creating some distances. I have very clear reasons for doing this. I’ve never considered myself ‘alt right’ because it is synonymous with the use of critique (disapproval, ridicule, shaming, rallying, trolling, propagandizing) and utterly devoid of innovative solutions to the problems we face. Hence why I used ‘New Right’ until others coopted it. We have seen the main body of the previous alt right crash and burn since Charlottesville. We have seen the intellectual resistance ‘right’ (or rather then right classical liberals) take over the discourse. But they are just creating a thin veil of resistance against the onslaught of the Cathedral Complex. The question I want to answer, is where from here? For myself, I want to increase the number and quality people increasingly ‘the ordinary right’. Why? There is nothing unpalatable about my work – it’s an innovation on classical liberalism. I don’t hate on anyone. Every group can transcend. If we only end cosmopolitanism and take responsibility for doing it. May 19, 2018 5:55pm
-
Upgrade Cycle of Movements – Including Ours.
You know when you’ve been out of college a while and you realize you need to upgrade friends? I mean, they got you to this point, and maybe there is a keeper in there, but you really need to upgrade to people who more share your career, family, or lifestyle? Businesses go through a similar cycle, of selling to whomever they can get, to those who others don’t serve well, to those that are mainstream, to depending on their best customers, and if possible they shoot for ferrari-gucci territory of specializing in the pure signal market. Movements go through very similar evolutions. You start with the fringe because they’re the extreme novelty seekers. The fringe spreads your message to those seeking to augment their own novelties. Those spread to those seeking ideas. To those that are searching for solutions. To those that want a solution to rally around. What we fail to mention is that we must rid ourselves of people who might be a drag on the next market. And this is sometimes painful. Some people cannot follow. Some have followed enough. Some can follow, some drive, and some lead it. And if you are lucky you develop a group that leads it in different directions (I think that’s us) rather than tries to maintain control of it (as did NRx). Furthermore, there are people you must very clearly disassociate yourself, your business, or your movement from, because their desires for attention, influence, and control ( or to divide, or undermine ) your ability to gain the next more advantageous market. Most of you know how I work – very ‘thoroughly’ – by immersing myself in a subject, tearing it apart, and rebuilding what I can from the few grains of truth I found. I then use established groups as test subjects and attack those ideas – because the very passionate defend them intensely. If you are of a certain mind this can be fascinating to watch. If you are of other minds, this can be upsetting. But it is science at its best: exhaustive reduction to operational language. Over the past few days I’ve been working at making some very clear distinctions, and creating some distances. I have very clear reasons for doing this. I’ve never considered myself ‘alt right’ because it is synonymous with the use of critique (disapproval, ridicule, shaming, rallying, trolling, propagandizing) and utterly devoid of innovative solutions to the problems we face. Hence why I used ‘New Right’ until others coopted it. We have seen the main body of the previous alt right crash and burn since Charlottesville. We have seen the intellectual resistance ‘right’ (or rather then right classical liberals) take over the discourse. But they are just creating a thin veil of resistance against the onslaught of the Cathedral Complex. The question I want to answer, is where from here? For myself, I want to increase the number and quality people increasingly ‘the ordinary right’. Why? There is nothing unpalatable about my work – it’s an innovation on classical liberalism. I don’t hate on anyone. Every group can transcend. If we only end cosmopolitanism and take responsibility for doing it. May 19, 2018 5:55pm
-
“Does that Mean the Thing They Killed Has No Value?”
—“Curt Doolittle If someone kills something, and nobody punishes them for doing so, does that mean the thing they killed has no value?”— Michael D. Abbott omg that is a really really smart question. Really.. Um, if that person was not insured by others, then it means it did not have sufficient value to insure. That does not mean it had no potential value. —“It’s not only the things we pay for. It’s also the things we punish for as well, yes?”—Michael D. Abbott Um, I would ask you to be more precise but I think, yes. The fact that we punish for it, (insure it) is evidence of the value of something. The fact that we don’t (insure it) is evidence that we don’t’ Lets just remember that we’re a little stupid now and then… 😉