The military does an exceptional job of converting upper proletarian and lower middle class men who would otherwise be selfish and useless into useful cogs in an amazingly large and complex machine. It is a very organized pseudo-society, but it does form a society. I am surrounded by these guys at the moment and it’s amazing how GOOD FOR YOU that military service is in making you a less selfish and capable member of the polity. I still think public service and basic training in the militial model should be required. I would have sucked at it. It would have been very hard on me. But I would have done it. And I think I would have been the better for it. A lot of men would happily join companies that would ‘take care of them for life’ at very low disposable income, and be perfectly happy to not fend for themselves in the labor market directly. The military (service), Guild (professional union), and entrepreneurial(independent) models all work, as long as we do not try to make them universals.
Monopoly is the enemy. Not government. Not state. But monopoly. Because we are vastly unequal.
(a) people act as racial blocks to obtain power over other people – this is in their interests. (b) minorities largely are irrelevant as long as they cannot obtain political power – ie: democracy – and live within their ‘quarters’ (neighborhoods); (c) the origin of friction is not race it is the value of in-group vs out-group status signals and differences in cultural rules that suppress different degrees of parasitism: normative incommensurability; (d) where the problem of conflict is not culture it is desirability for reproduction and therefore status signals in group vs out group; (e) where the problem is not desirability it is impulsivity, and the consequences of impulsivity (spontaneous, loud, rude, crude, violent), which hinders cooperation between less impulsive and more impulsive groups.
It’s irrational to seek to overcome these frictions. In otherwords, it is not rational to expect people to behave otherwise to competitiors in those cases where they are in fact competitors not cooperators.
Genetic culling (genetic pacification, eugenic reproduction) matters. That is bcause conflict is largely a problem OF CLASS and CULTURE not of race. The problem is the distribution of numbers between the classes between the races. if you see upper and middle class people of various colors in the same room they are still more positive and trusting to in-group members, but they cause fewer political problems with outgroup members.
All groups reject out-group competitors. Whether within race or without. Upper class whites (me) don’t like to spend too much time with lower class whites. They like it even less with lower classes of other groups over whom they have no signaling value to exchange to moderate conflicts.s
I am keenly aware when traveling, or doing business, or participating in intellectual forums, when I am the white minority, and how people treat me, just as anyone else is. In Hartford (which is a black city) I felt it. For many years I worked in predominantly jewish companies and felt it. In academia I feel an outlier. In business I feel an outlier. We all feel kin selection unless we are privileged by circumstance, and in peer classes.
Hence the only way to avoid racism is to homogenize the classes and cultures such that racial signals are neither valuable nor detrimental.
We can tolerate racial mixture (it merely affects reproductive desirability). We can tolerate some class mixture within the same group. But mixing race, culture and class differences is more cross group competition for individuals in each group to rationally choose egalitarianism.
As an intellectual I prefer to judge people only on intellectual and moral merits. As member of my family and tribe I place greater value on the perpetuation, improvement and expansion of of mine than that of others. As a business man, I prefer to see everyone as equal in potential to generate wealth. As a politician I am keenly aware that internal conflict and competition are constraints upon in-group status signals (harmony), economic prosperity, the construction of commons, and the competitive success of the group is predicated on the least diverse, most
If groups are not willing to practice culling (genetic pacification, eugenic reproduction) then they are merely lying when they say they want equality – what they want is to win, and to weaken their competitors through appeal via suggestion to pathological altruism.
So from this perspective, racists are not the problem. The failure of groups to genetically pacify their underclasses is the challenge to overcome.
Anyway, that is where I end up today.
I have seen the change in american in my lifetime, and it is tragic. I am sitting here in Estonia and I see the damage done by the Russians and that the Russians constitute the lower (trailer park) classes. I can see in Sweden, Denmark, England and Norway that they have no intellectual recollection of their history of genetic pacification and therefore do not appreciate the suicide mission they are engaging in. The Chinese are perfectly aware of it. The were just less successful than the west because of their large numbers. THe hindus use class. The Brazillians have been most successful in the opposite: elimination of racism, interbreeding. And that has resulted in recreating the caste and poverty of india.
There are only three choices: hindu castes bcause of genetic diversity, aristocratic equality through genetic pacification, or asian tyranny to force homogeniety of behavior.
As usual, I would say that complaints about out-groups are admissions of in-group failure to resist competition from the range of strategies of others.
Curt
Frank CastleIn an effort to make things safe and fair we perpetuate/exacerbate weakness and flaws. Thereby creating a system in which we need more government intervention to maintain safety and fairness. All the while creating more problems increasing the need for more and more government. We truly need a new system.
Are there only 3 choices?
Eli HarmanOne reason the lower classes are racist is that they are in direct competition for resources they don’t create: jobs, handouts, etc… the middle and upper classes don’t have to argue about who gets how much pie. They can make pie.
Lou Kiss. Correct me if I’m wrong. One cannot change one’s race, but one can change one’s class for better or worse. What it takes is examination of conscience and revision of behaviour. Hence, we all have the potential to rise up to moral aristocracy but the individual must do it for himself.
(a) people act as racial blocks to obtain power over other people – this is in their interests. (b) minorities largely are irrelevant as long as they cannot obtain political power – ie: democracy – and live within their ‘quarters’ (neighborhoods); (c) the origin of friction is not race it is the value of in-group vs out-group status signals and differences in cultural rules that suppress different degrees of parasitism: normative incommensurability; (d) where the problem of conflict is not culture it is desirability for reproduction and therefore status signals in group vs out group; (e) where the problem is not desirability it is impulsivity, and the consequences of impulsivity (spontaneous, loud, rude, crude, violent), which hinders cooperation between less impulsive and more impulsive groups.
It’s irrational to seek to overcome these frictions. In otherwords, it is not rational to expect people to behave otherwise to competitiors in those cases where they are in fact competitors not cooperators.
Genetic culling (genetic pacification, eugenic reproduction) matters. That is bcause conflict is largely a problem OF CLASS and CULTURE not of race. The problem is the distribution of numbers between the classes between the races. if you see upper and middle class people of various colors in the same room they are still more positive and trusting to in-group members, but they cause fewer political problems with outgroup members.
All groups reject out-group competitors. Whether within race or without. Upper class whites (me) don’t like to spend too much time with lower class whites. They like it even less with lower classes of other groups over whom they have no signaling value to exchange to moderate conflicts.s
I am keenly aware when traveling, or doing business, or participating in intellectual forums, when I am the white minority, and how people treat me, just as anyone else is. In Hartford (which is a black city) I felt it. For many years I worked in predominantly jewish companies and felt it. In academia I feel an outlier. In business I feel an outlier. We all feel kin selection unless we are privileged by circumstance, and in peer classes.
Hence the only way to avoid racism is to homogenize the classes and cultures such that racial signals are neither valuable nor detrimental.
We can tolerate racial mixture (it merely affects reproductive desirability). We can tolerate some class mixture within the same group. But mixing race, culture and class differences is more cross group competition for individuals in each group to rationally choose egalitarianism.
As an intellectual I prefer to judge people only on intellectual and moral merits. As member of my family and tribe I place greater value on the perpetuation, improvement and expansion of of mine than that of others. As a business man, I prefer to see everyone as equal in potential to generate wealth. As a politician I am keenly aware that internal conflict and competition are constraints upon in-group status signals (harmony), economic prosperity, the construction of commons, and the competitive success of the group is predicated on the least diverse, most
If groups are not willing to practice culling (genetic pacification, eugenic reproduction) then they are merely lying when they say they want equality – what they want is to win, and to weaken their competitors through appeal via suggestion to pathological altruism.
So from this perspective, racists are not the problem. The failure of groups to genetically pacify their underclasses is the challenge to overcome.
Anyway, that is where I end up today.
I have seen the change in american in my lifetime, and it is tragic. I am sitting here in Estonia and I see the damage done by the Russians and that the Russians constitute the lower (trailer park) classes. I can see in Sweden, Denmark, England and Norway that they have no intellectual recollection of their history of genetic pacification and therefore do not appreciate the suicide mission they are engaging in. The Chinese are perfectly aware of it. The were just less successful than the west because of their large numbers. THe hindus use class. The Brazillians have been most successful in the opposite: elimination of racism, interbreeding. And that has resulted in recreating the caste and poverty of india.
There are only three choices: hindu castes bcause of genetic diversity, aristocratic equality through genetic pacification, or asian tyranny to force homogeniety of behavior.
As usual, I would say that complaints about out-groups are admissions of in-group failure to resist competition from the range of strategies of others.
Curt
Frank CastleIn an effort to make things safe and fair we perpetuate/exacerbate weakness and flaws. Thereby creating a system in which we need more government intervention to maintain safety and fairness. All the while creating more problems increasing the need for more and more government. We truly need a new system.
Are there only 3 choices?
Eli HarmanOne reason the lower classes are racist is that they are in direct competition for resources they don’t create: jobs, handouts, etc… the middle and upper classes don’t have to argue about who gets how much pie. They can make pie.
Lou Kiss. Correct me if I’m wrong. One cannot change one’s race, but one can change one’s class for better or worse. What it takes is examination of conscience and revision of behaviour. Hence, we all have the potential to rise up to moral aristocracy but the individual must do it for himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJQtTh7BKboSMART CRITICISM OF MARX
Good Talk. Hits the good points. I’d say that he does a better job than most of showing how Marx basically stopped writing as soon as the Marginal Revolution kicked in. He couldn’t recant – that would have meant ending his income stream from Engels. But ending his work was evidence enough that he understood his efforts were false and a failure.
Audience is full of idiots, but that’s to be expected.
Those yummy white collar jobs? Calculating? Organizing Incentives? Managing Credit and Debt? Moving information? They are ultimately dependent upon those people who have blue collar jobs, and service jobs. That does not mean that they have some claim to the fruits of your labor, but it does mean that outside of the fruits of your labor, that advancing policy that creates work for them is in your interests.
The voluntary organization of production that we call capitalism is constructed by all our efforts to forgo consumption and respect property in order to create a market for the production distribution trade and consumption of goods and services.
Take care of the little people who try. Get rid of the little people who complain.
WHY ARE ALL BOOKS ON COSMOPOLITAN LIBERTINISM INTRODUCTORY?
There is a reason that all works on libertarianism are introductions and so very few are advanced, as are works in economics, capital, public choice, democracy, social democracy, marxism and even neo-conservatism.
We really have what, Hayek on classical liberal law, and Garrison and Reissman in classical economics? But advanced works on libertarianism don’t exist other than rothbard’s revisionist history and his works on banking. Criticisms (man economy and state) are not the same as advocacy of actionable production of institutions that can survive competition from opposing preferences.
The reason people rely upon catchphrases is because there is very little else to rely upon. And those other things we can rely upon (the business cycle, capital formation) are not special to us, but matters of mainstream argument.
As an empirical measure, why is it that largely intro works exist? Why is it that the near near propaganda level advocacy of Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe fails to include the critics? Why is it that of the scholars in the field only David Friedman survives – and he survives precisely because he makes preferential rather than rational or empirical arguments?
Aristocratic, Anglo, High Trust, Landed, Legal, Anarcho Capitalism
vs
Martial, Germanic, High Trust, Landed, Hierarchical, Tribal/Familial Capitalism.
As far as I can tell the germans were right prior to the conquest of the german civilization by it’s heretical offshoot the anglo civilization.
The anglo method of law is correct but the strategy is incorrect. The german social order strategy is correct, but the justificationary kantian method is incorrect. The Ashkenazi social strategy is incorrect AND the pseudoscientific method is incorrect.
Everyone got the enlightenment at least half wrong.