I love people. All people. My people more. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/i-love-people-all-people-my-people-more/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 16:35:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266045492565209089
Theme: Class
-
I love people. All people. My people more.
Mar 24, 2020, 9:58 PM
No. I love people. All people. My people more. Especially middle and working class people. And I feel I have to protect them. Because it dawned on me while very young that all but the best are children running with physical, conceptual, and political scissors, continuously hurting themselves and others, and I can’t find a suit of armor to protect myself from them. Parenting is necessary.
-
I love people. All people. My people more.
Mar 24, 2020, 9:58 PM
No. I love people. All people. My people more. Especially middle and working class people. And I feel I have to protect them. Because it dawned on me while very young that all but the best are children running with physical, conceptual, and political scissors, continuously hurting themselves and others, and I can’t find a suit of armor to protect myself from them. Parenting is necessary.
-
As Deluded as Marx but With Some Economic Literacy Thrown in The Mix to Dazzle and Confuse People.
Oct 5, 2019, 11:04 AM By: Daniel Jordan via Michael Hayes I think it’s difficult for some people to get their brain out of a certain loop. Once someone destroys the illusion that the wealthy are not by necessity rich due to exploitation of the poor because the pie isn’t fixed (only the past is a fixed pie). The next illusion that gets propped up is created by applying this logic to other avenues of life. The idea that mass migration cannot possibly effect you because again the ‘pie isn’t fixed’ or that it simply should not effect you if not for bad policies (excessive welfare state brought onto you by force of the government) and so the next illusion that is propped up in tandem with the non fixed pie view of immigration is the NAP(non aggression principal). And this farcical idea of speculative harm being out of the question for use of force. Now we see the axiom that lays at the root of the ex socialist, neo-liberal. The most important commodity in the commons is trust. Trust that for various biological/cultural reasons can be eroded. NAP can collapse on its own merits if we even allow one iota of punishment for the most heinous of crimes such as murder. It’s not an axiom/ethic congruent with our nature to simply let evil walk free in the name of NAP. Consider the fact that the whole reason you lock someone up for murder is based on speculative future harm. Take the idea of air pollution or water pollution. The latter can generally be solved efficiently through property rights and give people all the protection we need. The former requires targeted regulation due to the nature of the problems and that it’s not really possible to have someone own the air (other than perhaps air traffic rights). Both of these things however have to be backed up by the courts (force, aggression if you will) and both require proactive (speculative) measures. Libertarians generally get economic issues, but they do not have a consistent view of the use of force. I suppose they are perfectly consistent if they are genuine ancaps, but really very few of them are, and that kind of Rothbardian view of humanity is pure fantasy, just as deluded as Marx but with some economic literacy thrown in the mix to dazzle and confuse people.
-
As Deluded as Marx but With Some Economic Literacy Thrown in The Mix to Dazzle and Confuse People.
Oct 5, 2019, 11:04 AM By: Daniel Jordan via Michael Hayes I think it’s difficult for some people to get their brain out of a certain loop. Once someone destroys the illusion that the wealthy are not by necessity rich due to exploitation of the poor because the pie isn’t fixed (only the past is a fixed pie). The next illusion that gets propped up is created by applying this logic to other avenues of life. The idea that mass migration cannot possibly effect you because again the ‘pie isn’t fixed’ or that it simply should not effect you if not for bad policies (excessive welfare state brought onto you by force of the government) and so the next illusion that is propped up in tandem with the non fixed pie view of immigration is the NAP(non aggression principal). And this farcical idea of speculative harm being out of the question for use of force. Now we see the axiom that lays at the root of the ex socialist, neo-liberal. The most important commodity in the commons is trust. Trust that for various biological/cultural reasons can be eroded. NAP can collapse on its own merits if we even allow one iota of punishment for the most heinous of crimes such as murder. It’s not an axiom/ethic congruent with our nature to simply let evil walk free in the name of NAP. Consider the fact that the whole reason you lock someone up for murder is based on speculative future harm. Take the idea of air pollution or water pollution. The latter can generally be solved efficiently through property rights and give people all the protection we need. The former requires targeted regulation due to the nature of the problems and that it’s not really possible to have someone own the air (other than perhaps air traffic rights). Both of these things however have to be backed up by the courts (force, aggression if you will) and both require proactive (speculative) measures. Libertarians generally get economic issues, but they do not have a consistent view of the use of force. I suppose they are perfectly consistent if they are genuine ancaps, but really very few of them are, and that kind of Rothbardian view of humanity is pure fantasy, just as deluded as Marx but with some economic literacy thrown in the mix to dazzle and confuse people.
-
Q: “… Unions?”
Q: “… Unions?” https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/q-unions/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 17:39:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265699136424292353
-
Q: “… Unions?”
Oct 12, 2019, 5:20 PM The original purpose of unions was to protect the underclasses. The communists worked thru the labor unions. They used unions to drive class warfare. Unions were the largest contributors to the democratic party. Unions drove the democratic party into socialism and communism under marxism like identity politics under postmodernism. The remaining purpose of unions is to attempt to provide labor with above-middle class earnings not sustainable in the world economy. Unions are what drove business offshore (I was involved in that discussion back then). Trump is trying to drive business back on shore. Taxes WERE the the primary reason preventing re-shoring. Trump fixed that. Now unions are the primary reason preventing re-shoring manufacturing. The market and political problem with unions is collective bargaining law, not unions themselves (safety, work distribution). The primary problem with unions today is pensions which cannot ever be paid (and won’t be), not wages. Mandatory fees are the primary complaint by people opposed to the left. Unions are not resisting immigration, which is what is keeping wage down. Unions were advantageous during the brief postwar period where it allowed labor to capture a grater share of windfall profits – that no longer exist. Unions were necessary at least in the private sector to cause legal change in health, safety, and work load, but it was insurance companies and liability law that provided that change not unions. It is not clear what value they serve today in the private sector other than to limit competition for labor and raise wages and possibly lengthen careers preventing constant turnover by age discrimination. The general argument has been for years that any valuable function provided by unions (pensions) must eventually be provided by the state or it will disappear. The only reason collective bargaining still exists is that it’s politically impossible to get it past the government union competition, not the private sector. So unions are responsible for the overpayment of government costs, salaries, benefits, and pensions despite the unproductively of government, and preventing customer service, and preventing and rotation of government workers not providing government service. There is a reason the region around Washington is wealthy.
-
Q: “… Unions?”
Oct 12, 2019, 5:20 PM The original purpose of unions was to protect the underclasses. The communists worked thru the labor unions. They used unions to drive class warfare. Unions were the largest contributors to the democratic party. Unions drove the democratic party into socialism and communism under marxism like identity politics under postmodernism. The remaining purpose of unions is to attempt to provide labor with above-middle class earnings not sustainable in the world economy. Unions are what drove business offshore (I was involved in that discussion back then). Trump is trying to drive business back on shore. Taxes WERE the the primary reason preventing re-shoring. Trump fixed that. Now unions are the primary reason preventing re-shoring manufacturing. The market and political problem with unions is collective bargaining law, not unions themselves (safety, work distribution). The primary problem with unions today is pensions which cannot ever be paid (and won’t be), not wages. Mandatory fees are the primary complaint by people opposed to the left. Unions are not resisting immigration, which is what is keeping wage down. Unions were advantageous during the brief postwar period where it allowed labor to capture a grater share of windfall profits – that no longer exist. Unions were necessary at least in the private sector to cause legal change in health, safety, and work load, but it was insurance companies and liability law that provided that change not unions. It is not clear what value they serve today in the private sector other than to limit competition for labor and raise wages and possibly lengthen careers preventing constant turnover by age discrimination. The general argument has been for years that any valuable function provided by unions (pensions) must eventually be provided by the state or it will disappear. The only reason collective bargaining still exists is that it’s politically impossible to get it past the government union competition, not the private sector. So unions are responsible for the overpayment of government costs, salaries, benefits, and pensions despite the unproductively of government, and preventing customer service, and preventing and rotation of government workers not providing government service. There is a reason the region around Washington is wealthy.
-
The Subversiveness of The Lie of Equality
Oct 12, 2019, 8:09 PM by Bill Joslin (See what happens when we get bill in the game too???) Equivocation of equality as categorical membership with qualitative assessment ( that being the notion that all are equally valuable), results in an obscurity of ingroup distinction i.e. leads to the notion of open borders and franchise for all. We are equally members of the ingroup (categorical membership) or equally not (not a member of the ingroup)… conflation of “all men are created equally before god” with categorical membership obscures ingroup criteria and disarms any categorical assessment (that dude over in Nigeria was “created equal before god” and thus must be part of our group). this obscures calculation of membership benefit. specifically this stands as an example of creating AMBIGUITY. What is it that our group does? DISAMBIGUATE. Isonomy and categorical membership as the foundation for the notion of equally DISAMBIGUATES allowing for calculation of membership benefit and policing. Qualitative assessment as the foundation for the notion of equality affords obscurity in deciding membership benefit and policing…. which is why, after 100 years of the romantic notions (romantic r@pe of enlightenment ideas) we now have outgroups being extended ingroup benefit while skirting ingroup accountability. Truth is, notions such as equality and tolerance, in their initial application, remain critical to creating the world we would like see manifest. However, romantic age manipulations of these terms paved the way for the left to use our innovations against us, and the further regions of the right to rejects core mechanisms of what made the west great. Gotta admit – our enemies (broadly speaking – platonists) are fucking brilliant, which is why we must be more vigilant. Edit
-
The Subversiveness of The Lie of Equality
Oct 12, 2019, 8:09 PM by Bill Joslin (See what happens when we get bill in the game too???) Equivocation of equality as categorical membership with qualitative assessment ( that being the notion that all are equally valuable), results in an obscurity of ingroup distinction i.e. leads to the notion of open borders and franchise for all. We are equally members of the ingroup (categorical membership) or equally not (not a member of the ingroup)… conflation of “all men are created equally before god” with categorical membership obscures ingroup criteria and disarms any categorical assessment (that dude over in Nigeria was “created equal before god” and thus must be part of our group). this obscures calculation of membership benefit. specifically this stands as an example of creating AMBIGUITY. What is it that our group does? DISAMBIGUATE. Isonomy and categorical membership as the foundation for the notion of equally DISAMBIGUATES allowing for calculation of membership benefit and policing. Qualitative assessment as the foundation for the notion of equality affords obscurity in deciding membership benefit and policing…. which is why, after 100 years of the romantic notions (romantic r@pe of enlightenment ideas) we now have outgroups being extended ingroup benefit while skirting ingroup accountability. Truth is, notions such as equality and tolerance, in their initial application, remain critical to creating the world we would like see manifest. However, romantic age manipulations of these terms paved the way for the left to use our innovations against us, and the further regions of the right to rejects core mechanisms of what made the west great. Gotta admit – our enemies (broadly speaking – platonists) are fucking brilliant, which is why we must be more vigilant. Edit