By Bill Joslin
The spectrum of autonomy.
Autonomy – agency unimposed upon by another (left alone, the liberty of living on an island with no enemies etc. It’s not liberty, nor sovereignty, but rather autonomy)
Sovereignty – Autonomy insured by force (impositions by another rendered unlikely or impossible)
Liberty – the benefit of Sovereignty (autonomy) extended to those not able to secure autonomy for themselves (autonomy by permission and insurance from a sovereign).
Freedom – accepted limits upon ones liberty (autonomy by permission) in exchange for insurance of autonomy (we agree to obey laws, a limitation on autonomy, to have autonomy insured by a sovereign) – Or “Free within the Domain” Domain or dominion – you are free as long as you remain within the domain of agreed behaviour and within the territory of the sovereign.
Autonomy [proper] -> Autonomy secured [sovereignty]-> Autonomy extended [liberty]->Autonomy Limited [freedom]
Theme: Agency
-
by Bill Joslin —“With any social animal, weak leadership results in stress thr
by Bill Joslin —“With any social animal, weak leadership results in stress throughout the herd/pack. If leadership is in doubt all members stand up and try to take control (as much out of necessity as with the desire to dominate). Essentially – “Someones gotta lead”…. so, issues with feminine tactics being prevalent in social temperament isn’t so much about women becoming unruly as much as it pertains to a drop in the vigour of men. Fixing “the problem with the gals” requires addressing the guys. Suppressing symptoms does not eradicate the disease.”— -
by Bill Joslin —“With any social animal, weak leadership results in stress thr
by Bill Joslin
—“With any social animal, weak leadership results in stress throughout the herd/pack. If leadership is in doubt all members stand up and try to take control (as much out of necessity as with the desire to dominate). Essentially – “Someones gotta lead”…. so, issues with feminine tactics being prevalent in social temperament isn’t so much about women becoming unruly as much as it pertains to a drop in the vigour of men.
Fixing “the problem with the gals” requires addressing the guys. Suppressing symptoms does not eradicate the disease.”—
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-30 16:16:00 UTC
-
by Bill Joslin —“With any social animal, weak leadership results in stress thr
by Bill Joslin —“With any social animal, weak leadership results in stress throughout the herd/pack. If leadership is in doubt all members stand up and try to take control (as much out of necessity as with the desire to dominate). Essentially – “Someones gotta lead”…. so, issues with feminine tactics being prevalent in social temperament isn’t so much about women becoming unruly as much as it pertains to a drop in the vigour of men. Fixing “the problem with the gals” requires addressing the guys. Suppressing symptoms does not eradicate the disease.”— -
I depend on women all the time in personal, private, and political life, and tha
I depend on women all the time in personal, private, and political life, and that I find that women (and gays) provide valuable insight.
I see no harm in this model, since, (as simon stated above) it would be impossible for women to use ‘female’ (deceptive) speech in public, and that this would cause a change in our women that is both desirable and necessary. So I see it as a means of completing the domestication of women – long since accomplished in men.
The fact that I want to limit their excesses does not mean that I do not want their inputs. No CEO of merit ever does that. No king of merit ever does that. Leadership involves exhaustively collecting ideas until no novelties can be found.
So where you see empowerment, I see constraint. Where you see risk, I see training. That is why. Produce a market for the signals and speech that is true, and provide punishment for the alternatives, and let the market do its thing.
A married woman with three children, who can be legally punished for gossip and “scolding”, will be a fairly rare thing.
if you don’t think that’s optimum. Thats fine. However, If I want to create a universal political consitution for every human group I have to include the options.
What people do with them is their own choice.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-30 16:00:00 UTC
-
I depend on women all the time in personal, private, and political life, and tha
I depend on women all the time in personal, private, and political life, and that I find that women (and gays) provide valuable insight. I see no harm in this model, since, (as simon stated above) it would be impossible for women to use ‘female’ (deceptive) speech in public, and that this would cause a change in our women that is both desirable and necessary. So I see it as a means of completing the domestication of women – long since accomplished in men. The fact that I want to limit their excesses does not mean that I do not want their inputs. No CEO of merit ever does that. No king of merit ever does that. Leadership involves exhaustively collecting ideas until no novelties can be found. So where you see empowerment, I see constraint. Where you see risk, I see training. That is why. Produce a market for the signals and speech that is true, and provide punishment for the alternatives, and let the market do its thing. A married woman with three children, who can be legally punished for gossip and “scolding”, will be a fairly rare thing. if you don’t think that’s optimum. Thats fine. However, If I want to create a universal political consitution for every human group I have to include the options. What people do with them is their own choice. -
I depend on women all the time in personal, private, and political life, and tha
I depend on women all the time in personal, private, and political life, and that I find that women (and gays) provide valuable insight. I see no harm in this model, since, (as simon stated above) it would be impossible for women to use ‘female’ (deceptive) speech in public, and that this would cause a change in our women that is both desirable and necessary. So I see it as a means of completing the domestication of women – long since accomplished in men. The fact that I want to limit their excesses does not mean that I do not want their inputs. No CEO of merit ever does that. No king of merit ever does that. Leadership involves exhaustively collecting ideas until no novelties can be found. So where you see empowerment, I see constraint. Where you see risk, I see training. That is why. Produce a market for the signals and speech that is true, and provide punishment for the alternatives, and let the market do its thing. A married woman with three children, who can be legally punished for gossip and “scolding”, will be a fairly rare thing. if you don’t think that’s optimum. Thats fine. However, If I want to create a universal political consitution for every human group I have to include the options. What people do with them is their own choice. -
by Simon Ström —“I need to comment on the differential distribution of traits
by Simon Ström
—“I need to comment on the differential distribution of traits between races, because although I agree with it otherwise, I don’t think Curt’s model is complete.
Genetic traits are not merely more or less frequent among different groups; they are often also entirely fixed (everybody in group X has it) or completely weeded out (nobody in group X has it), especially if a trait consistently proves to have an evolutionary advantage (or disadvantage).
Skin color is a very trivial but powerful example: you will never find a black-skinned European except in rare cases of de novo mutations (diseases) and subsequent familial heredity.
There are millions of SNPs that are fixed among all humans as a species, and even among all mammals, etc, because they are crucial for fetal development, for properly working coagulation systems, neuronal communication, oxygen transport, etc.”—
Correct. Although, again, I always prefix my statement with “meaningful” or “substantial” differences. And I mean this ONLY in the context of everyone’s ability to suppress their underclasses and produce higher trust polities by doing so.
So by ‘meaningful’ I mean only that any existential human group that produces a distribution above 100 (or 105, more likely), under rule of law by the common natural law of reciprocity, should be able to construct a sovereign (libertarian) high trust polity.
That ashkenazi will always be better with language, east asians better at math, and aryans (europeans) better at invention(creativity), and africans better at socialization, is just what the data tells us. I can’t levy judgment on the hindus because what ‘keeps them down’ (at least appears) to be cultural. There exist two great races that I know of: the Japanese and the Germanic. One that has potential (the russian). And I am certain the japanese have chosen survival. India will get there with time. I think China will get there with time. The rest of the world depends entirely on demographic shifts, and how successful the market is at reallocating reproduction upward.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-30 15:28:00 UTC
-
by Simon Ström —“I need to comment on the differential distribution of traits
by Simon Ström —“I need to comment on the differential distribution of traits between races, because although I agree with it otherwise, I don’t think Curt’s model is complete. Genetic traits are not merely more or less frequent among different groups; they are often also entirely fixed (everybody in group X has it) or completely weeded out (nobody in group X has it), especially if a trait consistently proves to have an evolutionary advantage (or disadvantage). Skin color is a very trivial but powerful example: you will never find a black-skinned European except in rare cases of de novo mutations (diseases) and subsequent familial heredity. There are millions of SNPs that are fixed among all humans as a species, and even among all mammals, etc, because they are crucial for fetal development, for properly working coagulation systems, neuronal communication, oxygen transport, etc.”— Correct. Although, again, I always prefix my statement with “meaningful” or “substantial” differences. And I mean this ONLY in the context of everyone’s ability to suppress their underclasses and produce higher trust polities by doing so. So by ‘meaningful’ I mean only that any existential human group that produces a distribution above 100 (or 105, more likely), under rule of law by the common natural law of reciprocity, should be able to construct a sovereign (libertarian) high trust polity. That ashkenazi will always be better with language, east asians better at math, and aryans (europeans) better at invention(creativity), and africans better at socialization, is just what the data tells us. I can’t levy judgment on the hindus because what ‘keeps them down’ (at least appears) to be cultural. There exist two great races that I know of: the Japanese and the Germanic. One that has potential (the russian). And I am certain the japanese have chosen survival. India will get there with time. I think China will get there with time. The rest of the world depends entirely on demographic shifts, and how successful the market is at reallocating reproduction upward. -
by Simon Ström —“I need to comment on the differential distribution of traits
by Simon Ström —“I need to comment on the differential distribution of traits between races, because although I agree with it otherwise, I don’t think Curt’s model is complete. Genetic traits are not merely more or less frequent among different groups; they are often also entirely fixed (everybody in group X has it) or completely weeded out (nobody in group X has it), especially if a trait consistently proves to have an evolutionary advantage (or disadvantage). Skin color is a very trivial but powerful example: you will never find a black-skinned European except in rare cases of de novo mutations (diseases) and subsequent familial heredity. There are millions of SNPs that are fixed among all humans as a species, and even among all mammals, etc, because they are crucial for fetal development, for properly working coagulation systems, neuronal communication, oxygen transport, etc.”— Correct. Although, again, I always prefix my statement with “meaningful” or “substantial” differences. And I mean this ONLY in the context of everyone’s ability to suppress their underclasses and produce higher trust polities by doing so. So by ‘meaningful’ I mean only that any existential human group that produces a distribution above 100 (or 105, more likely), under rule of law by the common natural law of reciprocity, should be able to construct a sovereign (libertarian) high trust polity. That ashkenazi will always be better with language, east asians better at math, and aryans (europeans) better at invention(creativity), and africans better at socialization, is just what the data tells us. I can’t levy judgment on the hindus because what ‘keeps them down’ (at least appears) to be cultural. There exist two great races that I know of: the Japanese and the Germanic. One that has potential (the russian). And I am certain the japanese have chosen survival. India will get there with time. I think China will get there with time. The rest of the world depends entirely on demographic shifts, and how successful the market is at reallocating reproduction upward.