(However) Primitive matrilineality (endogamous) Community Family (endogamous) Patriarchal Community Family (exogamous) Authoritarian Family Egalitarian Nuclear Family (~catholic) Absolute Nuclear Family (endogamous) (Anglo Saxon) Post-Marital Individual Family (endogamous) (Feminism) The Anglo Saxon Absolute Nuclear Family – no precise inheritance rules, frequent use of wills; – no cohabitation of married children with their parents; – no marriage between the children of brothers. “…think of England as being like this for at least 750 years. We live in small families. We buy and sell houses. … Our parents expect us to leave home for paid work …You try to save up some money from your wages so that you can afford to get married. … You can choose your spouse … It takes a long time to build up some savings from your work and find the right person with whom to settle down, so marriage comes quite lately, possibly in your late twenties.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Ethical Intuitionism Is Correct (I Think) (via Praxeology)
IF I AM CORRECT, THEN ETHICAL INTUITIONISM IS CORRECT But they authors just didn’t have Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe to help them. (I did.) What Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe didn’t have, was the past twenty years of scientific research to rely upon. And the diverse set of ethical intuitions are not diverse at all. He he he he… It’s awesome. “All rights are reducible to property rights.” True. “All moral and ethical intuitions are reducible to property rights” is true also. The first is a legal statement. The second is a biological one. Libertarians figure it out. Not all of it. But they did it. I just put the cherry on the topping.
-
Ethical Intuitionism Is Correct (I Think) (via Praxeology)
IF I AM CORRECT, THEN ETHICAL INTUITIONISM IS CORRECT But they authors just didn’t have Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe to help them. (I did.) What Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe didn’t have, was the past twenty years of scientific research to rely upon. And the diverse set of ethical intuitions are not diverse at all. He he he he… It’s awesome. “All rights are reducible to property rights.” True. “All moral and ethical intuitions are reducible to property rights” is true also. The first is a legal statement. The second is a biological one. Libertarians figure it out. Not all of it. But they did it. I just put the cherry on the topping.
-
The State Is The Enemy Of Civil, Voluntary, Society
“…a herd of timid and industrious animals of which government is the shepherd…” QUOTE: “It seems that if despotism came to be established in the democratic nations of our day, it would have other characteristics: it would be more extensive and milder, and it would degrade men without tormenting them. … I see an innumerable crowd of like and equal men who revolve on themselves without repose, procuring the small and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. … Above these an immense … power is elevated, which alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyments and watching over their fate. It is absolute, detailed, regular, far-seeing, and mild. It would resemble paternal power if, like that, it had for its object to prepare men for manhood; but on the contrary, it seeks only to keep them fixed irrevocably in childhood; it likes citizens to enjoy themselves provided that they think only of enjoying themselves. It willingly works for their happiness; but it wants to be the unique agent and sole arbiter of that; it provides for their security, foresees and secures their needs, facilitates their pleasures, conducts their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their estates, divides their inheritances; can it not take away from them entirely the trouble of thinking and the pain of living? So it is that every day it renders the employment of free will less useful and more rare; it confines the action of the will in a smaller space and little by little steals the very use of it from each citizen. … Thus, after taking each individual by turns in its powerful hands and kneading him as it likes, the sovereign extends its arms over society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules through which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot clear a way to surpass the crowd; it does not break wills but it softens them, bends them, and directs them; it rarely forces one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than … I have always believed that this sort of regulated, mild, and peaceful servitude, whose picture I have just painted, could be combined better than one imagines with some of the external forms of freedom, and that it would not be impossible for it to be established in the very shadow of the sovereignty of the people.” –Alexis de Tocqueville
-
The State Is The Enemy Of Civil, Voluntary, Society
“…a herd of timid and industrious animals of which government is the shepherd…” QUOTE: “It seems that if despotism came to be established in the democratic nations of our day, it would have other characteristics: it would be more extensive and milder, and it would degrade men without tormenting them. … I see an innumerable crowd of like and equal men who revolve on themselves without repose, procuring the small and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. … Above these an immense … power is elevated, which alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyments and watching over their fate. It is absolute, detailed, regular, far-seeing, and mild. It would resemble paternal power if, like that, it had for its object to prepare men for manhood; but on the contrary, it seeks only to keep them fixed irrevocably in childhood; it likes citizens to enjoy themselves provided that they think only of enjoying themselves. It willingly works for their happiness; but it wants to be the unique agent and sole arbiter of that; it provides for their security, foresees and secures their needs, facilitates their pleasures, conducts their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their estates, divides their inheritances; can it not take away from them entirely the trouble of thinking and the pain of living? So it is that every day it renders the employment of free will less useful and more rare; it confines the action of the will in a smaller space and little by little steals the very use of it from each citizen. … Thus, after taking each individual by turns in its powerful hands and kneading him as it likes, the sovereign extends its arms over society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules through which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot clear a way to surpass the crowd; it does not break wills but it softens them, bends them, and directs them; it rarely forces one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than … I have always believed that this sort of regulated, mild, and peaceful servitude, whose picture I have just painted, could be combined better than one imagines with some of the external forms of freedom, and that it would not be impossible for it to be established in the very shadow of the sovereignty of the people.” –Alexis de Tocqueville
-
"Way's Of Thinking" Are Premodern Solutions. We Need Understanding of Our Failures and Institutions That Correct Them.
We dont need another way of thinking. We cant convince anyone to adopt it. We dont need a new religion or belief. What we need is to understand why our beliefs, ways of thinking, and institutions failed to survive the extension of the franchise, and what to do about it now that they have failed. We cannot turn back the clock. Nor is the absurdity of the progressive fantasy either possible or survivable. It appears possible to reform our institutions by impending systemic collapse, or by outright insurrection. But it is clear that the majority favors feudal equality over entrepreneurial freedom. Numbers tell us that they do. So if we are to have freedom and they equality without one side conquering the other then we must sever our relations into multiple states or develop an alternative to majority monopoly rule. Given the value of scale in an insurer of last resort, and the virtue of a multiplicity of city states. And given the economic opportunity and cultural freedom that secession creates for each state, it may be possible to design a compromise solution which serves the moral differences and financial commonalities if each given modern technology. It would take a few years to implement but that time would permit demographic adjustment as well as the dismantlement of the federal monopoly, and the possibility if the solution would give vent to what is now leading to civil war.
-
"Way's Of Thinking" Are Premodern Solutions. We Need Understanding of Our Failures and Institutions That Correct Them.
We dont need another way of thinking. We cant convince anyone to adopt it. We dont need a new religion or belief. What we need is to understand why our beliefs, ways of thinking, and institutions failed to survive the extension of the franchise, and what to do about it now that they have failed. We cannot turn back the clock. Nor is the absurdity of the progressive fantasy either possible or survivable. It appears possible to reform our institutions by impending systemic collapse, or by outright insurrection. But it is clear that the majority favors feudal equality over entrepreneurial freedom. Numbers tell us that they do. So if we are to have freedom and they equality without one side conquering the other then we must sever our relations into multiple states or develop an alternative to majority monopoly rule. Given the value of scale in an insurer of last resort, and the virtue of a multiplicity of city states. And given the economic opportunity and cultural freedom that secession creates for each state, it may be possible to design a compromise solution which serves the moral differences and financial commonalities if each given modern technology. It would take a few years to implement but that time would permit demographic adjustment as well as the dismantlement of the federal monopoly, and the possibility if the solution would give vent to what is now leading to civil war.
-
“Way’s Of Thinking” Are Premodern Solutions. We Need Understanding of Our Failures and Institutions That Correct Them.
We dont need another way of thinking. We cant convince anyone to adopt it. We dont need a new religion or belief. What we need is to understand why our beliefs, ways of thinking, and institutions failed to survive the extension of the franchise, and what to do about it now that they have failed. We cannot turn back the clock. Nor is the absurdity of the progressive fantasy either possible or survivable. It appears possible to reform our institutions by impending systemic collapse, or by outright insurrection. But it is clear that the majority favors feudal equality over entrepreneurial freedom. Numbers tell us that they do. So if we are to have freedom and they equality without one side conquering the other then we must sever our relations into multiple states or develop an alternative to majority monopoly rule. Given the value of scale in an insurer of last resort, and the virtue of a multiplicity of city states. And given the economic opportunity and cultural freedom that secession creates for each state, it may be possible to design a compromise solution which serves the moral differences and financial commonalities if each given modern technology. It would take a few years to implement but that time would permit demographic adjustment as well as the dismantlement of the federal monopoly, and the possibility if the solution would give vent to what is now leading to civil war.
-
“Way’s Of Thinking” Are Premodern Solutions. We Need Understanding of Our Failures and Institutions That Correct Them.
We dont need another way of thinking. We cant convince anyone to adopt it. We dont need a new religion or belief. What we need is to understand why our beliefs, ways of thinking, and institutions failed to survive the extension of the franchise, and what to do about it now that they have failed. We cannot turn back the clock. Nor is the absurdity of the progressive fantasy either possible or survivable. It appears possible to reform our institutions by impending systemic collapse, or by outright insurrection. But it is clear that the majority favors feudal equality over entrepreneurial freedom. Numbers tell us that they do. So if we are to have freedom and they equality without one side conquering the other then we must sever our relations into multiple states or develop an alternative to majority monopoly rule. Given the value of scale in an insurer of last resort, and the virtue of a multiplicity of city states. And given the economic opportunity and cultural freedom that secession creates for each state, it may be possible to design a compromise solution which serves the moral differences and financial commonalities if each given modern technology. It would take a few years to implement but that time would permit demographic adjustment as well as the dismantlement of the federal monopoly, and the possibility if the solution would give vent to what is now leading to civil war.
-
The Contributions Of Computer Scientists To The Reformation In Libertarian And Conservative Political Thought.
When I went to Mises for the Austrian Scholars Conference the first time, I was struck dumb; first, by the incredible genius of the economic calculation argument, second by hoppe’s solution to the problem of institutions… But then equally by the failure to see that that BOTH Hayek and Mises were very close but wrong; the failure to grasp the importance of Popper’s contribution; the failure to grasp that no, the calculation issue was not ‘complete’. I realized something was wrong with Rothbard fairly quickly. It took me a few years to understand what Mises had done wrong with Praxeology, and only recently how to solve it completely. Hoppe was right about just about everything, but still had both Rothbard’s and Mises’ errors. But even so, he’d managed to get it all right anyway. Which, to me, is an even greater statement of his brilliance. Although, I’m still frustrated by his fascination with Argumentation. But it is this emphasis on experience and morality and preference instead of calculation that is everyone’s distraction. ( A topic that needs some reflection and exposition. And so I’ll return to it.) COMPUTER SCIENTISTS AND REFORMATION So strange. You know, there is this strange anti-computer-science bias in academia. But since the majority of intellectual revolution has come out of Mencius’ application of Austrian thought to conservatism, and my application of Austrian thought to libertarianism, while political science is fascinated by democracy, philosophy still squandering in the artifice of metaphysical pseudo-rationality, and mainstream economics is fascinated by growth and efficiency, and the left (literature) with obscurantism, pseudo-science, equality, diversity, and central control. And since, computer science is the only discipline that intersects between theoretical constructs and human interaction directly, I kind of think that, empirically speaking, computer science has more right than math, and certainly more right than economics. And political science and social science don’t even register signal above noise. Economics is a process of deduction from aggregation. Computer science is atomistic by its nature. It’s not deduction. It’s calculation. And therein lies an amazing difference in perception. We do not HAVE the economic data to tell us about human behavior at the level of atomicity we do with computers that interact with people on a daily basis. This teaches you about the hubris we must avoid when interacting with human beings. Math is platonic. Economics is idealistic. Computer science understands ‘ignorance, bias, incentives, and the limits of calculation’. Which is probably why we solved the political problem and the other groups didn’t.