RESTORING THE CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS PRIOR TO THE ATTEMPT TO INDUSTRIALIZE A MONOPOLY OF THE NUCLEAR FAMILY. We need to force the creation of (a) monasteries (education and caretaking) in the ‘scientific’ sense, and (b) regiments (emergency and defense), and (c) civic dormitories (commons construction and maintenance). These places need to provide room and board to men of character in each class, in exchange for civic labor. Strict behavioral requirements, preserving the sacredness of the commons, (and suppressing impulse), Privately managed non-profits (leaving membership discretionary and without state interference). They will absorb the excess male population that will only serve to increase, increase the scarcity of marriageable males, reduce the size and cost of the state, reduce the cost of commons construction and maintenance, improve the general health and welfare, allow us to return to handcrafted hand-maintained commons.And restore civic ‘ownership’. If in addition, we eliminate child support and alimony, the family will be restored in one or two generations. And where it isn’t we don’t need it to be.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Restoring Civic Organizations
I have learned a great deal living on this side of the pond. The old ways assisted families in classes in compatibility, they were not industrialized societies trying to mass produce middle class from variously incompatible raw materials. -
Searching Other’s Words While Listening
Some people ask if they approve Some people ask if it’s good. Some people ask if it’s true. Some people ask if it’s fraud. A prosecutor tests first for fraud. A scientist tests first for truth. A philosopher tests first for good. A common man tests first for his approval. Everyone tests whether he understands. First, seek to understand. Second if it’s true. Third if it’s a fraud. Fourth if it’s good Last, if you approve. No one else cares if you approve of much. You shouldn’t either.
-
Searching Other’s Words While Listening
Some people ask if they approve Some people ask if it’s good. Some people ask if it’s true. Some people ask if it’s fraud. A prosecutor tests first for fraud. A scientist tests first for truth. A philosopher tests first for good. A common man tests first for his approval. Everyone tests whether he understands. First, seek to understand. Second if it’s true. Third if it’s a fraud. Fourth if it’s good Last, if you approve. No one else cares if you approve of much. You shouldn’t either.
-
We Didn’t Domesticate the R’s (Enough). But We Can.
WE DIDN’T DOMESTICATE THE R-SELECTORS. BUT WE CAN. Well, I’m not anti-genetics, I’m anti-falsehood, anti-deception, and anti-dysgenia. But when I tell people that “all Jews are female” J mean to suggest that just as we western men are the intellectual advocates of scientific k-selection, jews are the intellectual advocates of the pseudoscientific r-selection. And that is the role Jews play in intellectual history – before we domesticate them as we had begun to prior to the second world war and the invasion of eastern European and Russian jews. Our lesson is that we insufficiently domesticated both our women and our jews, by extending the license for free speech we gave to other warriors (enfranchised males) to women and jews, without maintaining the THREAT that we maintained with enfranchised: violence.
Had we put jews and women to the duel, maintained the punishment for deception in the commons, maintained libel, maintained slander, and never adopted tolerance for their ridiculousness, we would not have lost our civilization. I’d prefer to live in a world with women and jews. I’d just prefer that we don’t let them destroy the civilization that makes possible the liberty of women and jews to think, speak, and act ridiculous and against our interests. (That’s probably quotable) -
We Didn’t Domesticate the R’s (Enough). But We Can.
WE DIDN’T DOMESTICATE THE R-SELECTORS. BUT WE CAN. Well, I’m not anti-genetics, I’m anti-falsehood, anti-deception, and anti-dysgenia. But when I tell people that “all Jews are female” J mean to suggest that just as we western men are the intellectual advocates of scientific k-selection, jews are the intellectual advocates of the pseudoscientific r-selection. And that is the role Jews play in intellectual history – before we domesticate them as we had begun to prior to the second world war and the invasion of eastern European and Russian jews. Our lesson is that we insufficiently domesticated both our women and our jews, by extending the license for free speech we gave to other warriors (enfranchised males) to women and jews, without maintaining the THREAT that we maintained with enfranchised: violence.
Had we put jews and women to the duel, maintained the punishment for deception in the commons, maintained libel, maintained slander, and never adopted tolerance for their ridiculousness, we would not have lost our civilization. I’d prefer to live in a world with women and jews. I’d just prefer that we don’t let them destroy the civilization that makes possible the liberty of women and jews to think, speak, and act ridiculous and against our interests. (That’s probably quotable) -
Public Speech As Risky Behavior
WORDS AND IDEAS AS RISKY BEHAVIOR I understand. Some people want to experiment with physical risk, some with sexual risk, some with chemical risk, and some of us with verbal risk. In other words, we all want to obtain stimuli from exploring new sensations with the method of sensory acquisition that’s most rewarding for us. When you take physical risk of skydiving or surfing it’s likely that you’ll hurt only unless you get a rescue worker harmed trying to save you. When you experiment with sexual risk, you can spread disease, or interfere with relationships and families. When you take chemical risk you can hurt yourself, but you can also use machines and vehicles, or even words, that bring you and others to harm. When you experiment with words and ideas you can bring yourself to harm, you can speak and bring others to harm, and if you’re very good at it, and promote or publish it, you can cause the deaths of more people than anything other than the great plagues.
We all want to ignore external costs to others. We all want to say our pursuits of stimulation are not harmful to others. But it’s always false. What’s counter-intuitive, is that the most dangerous things you can do to others is to promote damaging ideas. The only worse thing you can do is engineer contagious diseases. -
Public Speech As Risky Behavior
WORDS AND IDEAS AS RISKY BEHAVIOR I understand. Some people want to experiment with physical risk, some with sexual risk, some with chemical risk, and some of us with verbal risk. In other words, we all want to obtain stimuli from exploring new sensations with the method of sensory acquisition that’s most rewarding for us. When you take physical risk of skydiving or surfing it’s likely that you’ll hurt only unless you get a rescue worker harmed trying to save you. When you experiment with sexual risk, you can spread disease, or interfere with relationships and families. When you take chemical risk you can hurt yourself, but you can also use machines and vehicles, or even words, that bring you and others to harm. When you experiment with words and ideas you can bring yourself to harm, you can speak and bring others to harm, and if you’re very good at it, and promote or publish it, you can cause the deaths of more people than anything other than the great plagues.
We all want to ignore external costs to others. We all want to say our pursuits of stimulation are not harmful to others. But it’s always false. What’s counter-intuitive, is that the most dangerous things you can do to others is to promote damaging ideas. The only worse thing you can do is engineer contagious diseases. -
It’s The Philosophy of Time, Silly. Not Money.
The philosophy of Money is kind of stupid really. Money stores time. It’s time that’s the first object of construction in cooperation. Everything else in cooperation evolves from the problem of time. Any philosophical understanding of Money is subject to the philosophy of TIME
-
It’s The Philosophy of Time, Silly. Not Money.
The philosophy of Money is kind of stupid really. Money stores time. It’s time that’s the first object of construction in cooperation. Everything else in cooperation evolves from the problem of time. Any philosophical understanding of Money is subject to the philosophy of TIME
-
Clarification of Property, Possession, Rights
HOMESTEADING(CREATION) -> POSSESSION(DEFENSE) -> PROPERTY(NORM) -> PROPERTY RIGHTS(LAW) It’s probably clearer to label possession as my opinion and property as insured by third parties. I can possess material things, but I can have an interest in far more things. I’m going to try to correct this in my own usage.
I may hold possessions, but property is a normative construction, and property rights are a legal construction. And I think that is pretty much what the common law says.