[W]e are the only people to have done it. Because we are the only people who out-bred, and broke the extended family, creating universalism. The problem is that once we abandon nationalism, our out-bred high trust universalism rapidly became a weakness that has led to our conquest by older more primitive societies. Return To Aristocracy To Save Our People, and Our Uniqueness. On The Uniqueness Of The North Sea Peoples
Source: Original Site Post
-
Curing Libertarian Illiteracy
[T]he cure to libertarian illiteracy is to keep up on research, rely on science, and not empty verbalism of continental and cosmopolitan rationalism. (See Axelrod – Cooperation. See Fukuyama – Trust. See Todd ‘Explanation of Ideology; The Invention of Europe. See Hannan – The Invention of Liberty. See Kahnemann. See RIdley. See Pinker. See Haidt: Moral Foundations; The Righteous Mind. Here is the bibliography that points to the relevant research. http://www.propertarianism.com/jonathan-haidts-bibliography/ The libertarian spectrum is less ignorant of economics, but libertarian scientific illiteracy, moral blindness, and ideological zeal is nearly universal. Human moral instincts are objective and universal if we account for differences in reproductive strategies: they are prohibitions on free riding. Cultures may randomly invent different moral CODES that incorporate more or less prohibition on free riding, and accommodate the use of property in relation to family size. But the cause of moral instinct is universal: the prohibition on free riding and the requirement for contribution to production. That’s just science. Deal with it.
-
Curing Libertarian Illiteracy
[T]he cure to libertarian illiteracy is to keep up on research, rely on science, and not empty verbalism of continental and cosmopolitan rationalism. (See Axelrod – Cooperation. See Fukuyama – Trust. See Todd ‘Explanation of Ideology; The Invention of Europe. See Hannan – The Invention of Liberty. See Kahnemann. See RIdley. See Pinker. See Haidt: Moral Foundations; The Righteous Mind. Here is the bibliography that points to the relevant research. http://www.propertarianism.com/jonathan-haidts-bibliography/ The libertarian spectrum is less ignorant of economics, but libertarian scientific illiteracy, moral blindness, and ideological zeal is nearly universal. Human moral instincts are objective and universal if we account for differences in reproductive strategies: they are prohibitions on free riding. Cultures may randomly invent different moral CODES that incorporate more or less prohibition on free riding, and accommodate the use of property in relation to family size. But the cause of moral instinct is universal: the prohibition on free riding and the requirement for contribution to production. That’s just science. Deal with it.
-
On The Appropriation Of Names
WE LOST ‘LIBERAL’ TO THE SOCIALISTS. WE LOST ‘LIBERTARIAN’ TO ROTHBARDIAN GHETTO IMMORALITY. I chose Propertarianism, registered the names, and trademarked it for my own use. Ironic really. The term wasn’t used much. And only as ‘propertarian’ – a categorical pejorative on libertarians.
-
On The Appropriation Of Names
WE LOST ‘LIBERAL’ TO THE SOCIALISTS. WE LOST ‘LIBERTARIAN’ TO ROTHBARDIAN GHETTO IMMORALITY. I chose Propertarianism, registered the names, and trademarked it for my own use. Ironic really. The term wasn’t used much. And only as ‘propertarian’ – a categorical pejorative on libertarians.
-
The Moral Deception Of The Ethical Standard Of 'Psychic Benefit'
(worth repeating) [R]othbardian ethics only require ‘satisfaction’ or ‘psychic benefit’ or ‘voluntary cooperation in absence of the threat of violence. This is acceptable ethical criteria for exchange between states. However in-group ethical and moral codes evolved to prohibit free riding and parasitism. Such that the standard of ethical exchange is not ‘psychic’ alone, and therefore tolerates, licenses, and encourages deception; but objective, in that in-group trust requires that exchanges are objectively productive in addition to subjectively voluntary. I used to think Rothbard had simply made a mistake. However, it’s pretty hard to think that he was doing something other than trying to justify parasitic ethics as moral. Rothbardian ethics are immoral, unethical, parasitic and the reason the liberty movement has failed. Aristocratic Egalitarian (protestant, high trust) ethics are the only ethical scope of constraints that will allow for the formation of a voluntary polity capable of anarchic or private government. The total prohibition on free riding. The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality. **Why would one argue for an unethical and immoral scope of ethical constraints unless one was himself an immoral and unethical man?** Curt Doolittle The Philosophy Of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute. Kiev
-
The Moral Deception Of The Ethical Standard Of ‘Psychic Benefit’
(worth repeating) [R]othbardian ethics only require ‘satisfaction’ or ‘psychic benefit’ or ‘voluntary cooperation in absence of the threat of violence. This is acceptable ethical criteria for exchange between states. However in-group ethical and moral codes evolved to prohibit free riding and parasitism. Such that the standard of ethical exchange is not ‘psychic’ alone, and therefore tolerates, licenses, and encourages deception; but objective, in that in-group trust requires that exchanges are objectively productive in addition to subjectively voluntary. I used to think Rothbard had simply made a mistake. However, it’s pretty hard to think that he was doing something other than trying to justify parasitic ethics as moral. Rothbardian ethics are immoral, unethical, parasitic and the reason the liberty movement has failed. Aristocratic Egalitarian (protestant, high trust) ethics are the only ethical scope of constraints that will allow for the formation of a voluntary polity capable of anarchic or private government. The total prohibition on free riding. The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality. **Why would one argue for an unethical and immoral scope of ethical constraints unless one was himself an immoral and unethical man?** Curt Doolittle The Philosophy Of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute. Kiev
-
The Moral Deception Of The Ethical Standard Of 'Psychic Benefit'
(worth repeating) [R]othbardian ethics only require ‘satisfaction’ or ‘psychic benefit’ or ‘voluntary cooperation in absence of the threat of violence. This is acceptable ethical criteria for exchange between states. However in-group ethical and moral codes evolved to prohibit free riding and parasitism. Such that the standard of ethical exchange is not ‘psychic’ alone, and therefore tolerates, licenses, and encourages deception; but objective, in that in-group trust requires that exchanges are objectively productive in addition to subjectively voluntary. I used to think Rothbard had simply made a mistake. However, it’s pretty hard to think that he was doing something other than trying to justify parasitic ethics as moral. Rothbardian ethics are immoral, unethical, parasitic and the reason the liberty movement has failed. Aristocratic Egalitarian (protestant, high trust) ethics are the only ethical scope of constraints that will allow for the formation of a voluntary polity capable of anarchic or private government. The total prohibition on free riding. The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality. **Why would one argue for an unethical and immoral scope of ethical constraints unless one was himself an immoral and unethical man?** Curt Doolittle The Philosophy Of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute. Kiev
-
The Moral Deception Of The Ethical Standard Of ‘Psychic Benefit’
(worth repeating) [R]othbardian ethics only require ‘satisfaction’ or ‘psychic benefit’ or ‘voluntary cooperation in absence of the threat of violence. This is acceptable ethical criteria for exchange between states. However in-group ethical and moral codes evolved to prohibit free riding and parasitism. Such that the standard of ethical exchange is not ‘psychic’ alone, and therefore tolerates, licenses, and encourages deception; but objective, in that in-group trust requires that exchanges are objectively productive in addition to subjectively voluntary. I used to think Rothbard had simply made a mistake. However, it’s pretty hard to think that he was doing something other than trying to justify parasitic ethics as moral. Rothbardian ethics are immoral, unethical, parasitic and the reason the liberty movement has failed. Aristocratic Egalitarian (protestant, high trust) ethics are the only ethical scope of constraints that will allow for the formation of a voluntary polity capable of anarchic or private government. The total prohibition on free riding. The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality. **Why would one argue for an unethical and immoral scope of ethical constraints unless one was himself an immoral and unethical man?** Curt Doolittle The Philosophy Of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute. Kiev
-
What's The Difference
Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? (ethics) a) Do unto others as you would have done unto you. VS Do not to others that which you would not have done to you. b) Freedom to do what one wishes as long as he harms no other. VS Freedom from constraint by others on what one can do as long as he harms no other. c) An in-group requirement for production. VS An in-group prohibition on free riding. d) The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externalities. VS The prohibition on criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial actions. e) Mutually beneficial cooperation VS Parasitism. ANSWER? (‘Cmon. You can do it. Be brave.)