http://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2013/02/12/where-the-rich-live-in-america-conneticut-california-and-virginia-top-the-list/Where wealthy Americans live: near financial centers.
Where the money is.
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-30 03:33:00 UTC
Theme: Class
-
wealthy Americans live: near financial centers. Where the money is
-
INTELLECTUALS : GOSSIPERS —“Intellectuals are a social class in a position to
INTELLECTUALS : GOSSIPERS
—“Intellectuals are a social class in a position to critique societal matters for which they are not directly responsible and to advocate for the interests of other classes.”—
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-28 03:08:00 UTC
-
You see men in America who worry about their social status. You see the very sam
You see men in America who worry about their social status. You see the very same men here in Ukraine worry about finding work to feed their families. You see men check out of society in the states to watch sports and play video games. You see men check out of society to drink and watch sports here because they have no alternative.
The only difference between Canada and Ukraine is the influence of the major power next door. The only thing preventing a prosperous Ukraine is 20K lawyers and judges imported, and the conduct of law in english. And the ostracization of all Russian sympathizers from all walks of life. You think that’s a crazy idea: it’s freaking genius.
I hate seeing willing men whose lives go wasted.
I don’t care about whose race they belong to by the way.
I just care more about my tribe first, as all aristocracy should.
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-25 07:22:00 UTC
-
Moral Corporatism: Political Bias as Shareholder Agreements
[M]oral Corporatism:
LIBERTARIAN
A libertarian ethic in negative sense, is that one seeks to eliminate all external constraints upon his resources so that he may seize opportunities for productive gain. His analogy to a shareholder agreement is one in which he will cause no cost, but in return will liquidate his holdings if opportunities can be seized.CONSERVATIVE
A conservative ethics in the negative sense, is that one seeks so accumulate defensive resources by forgoing consumption until later. His analogy to a shareholder agreement is one in which he will only invest in long term storage of resources (including genetic resources), and deny himself and others access to consumption.PROGRESSIVE
A progressive ethic, in the negative sense, is that one seeks to accumulate all human bodies, by consuming everything possible – now. His analogy to a shareholder agreement is one in which all dividends are immediately consumed.CURRENT STATUS OF TECHNOLOGY
We currently construct all three of these via shareholder agreements today, and would do more of them, more widely if the government were not structured to force spending by these organizations so that they can be taxed at maximum yields and thereby forcing risk into investors management and employees. So government today takes money and increases risk from producers to decrease risk and increase consumption of non-producers. If this did not yield dysgenic results, lower trust, and economic degeneracy, then it would be rational (the scandinavian small state model, plus prohibition on immigration). -
Moral Corporatism: Political Bias as Shareholder Agreements
[M]oral Corporatism:
LIBERTARIAN
A libertarian ethic in negative sense, is that one seeks to eliminate all external constraints upon his resources so that he may seize opportunities for productive gain. His analogy to a shareholder agreement is one in which he will cause no cost, but in return will liquidate his holdings if opportunities can be seized.CONSERVATIVE
A conservative ethics in the negative sense, is that one seeks so accumulate defensive resources by forgoing consumption until later. His analogy to a shareholder agreement is one in which he will only invest in long term storage of resources (including genetic resources), and deny himself and others access to consumption.PROGRESSIVE
A progressive ethic, in the negative sense, is that one seeks to accumulate all human bodies, by consuming everything possible – now. His analogy to a shareholder agreement is one in which all dividends are immediately consumed.CURRENT STATUS OF TECHNOLOGY
We currently construct all three of these via shareholder agreements today, and would do more of them, more widely if the government were not structured to force spending by these organizations so that they can be taxed at maximum yields and thereby forcing risk into investors management and employees. So government today takes money and increases risk from producers to decrease risk and increase consumption of non-producers. If this did not yield dysgenic results, lower trust, and economic degeneracy, then it would be rational (the scandinavian small state model, plus prohibition on immigration). -
Humans are the Most Unequal Creatures on Earth
(interesting)
[H]UMANS divide (a)Perception, (b)Consideration, (c)Knowledge, (d)Labor, and (e) reproduction – and we negotiate through words and provide ‘facts’ or ‘data’ through acts of voluntary exchange.
We operate as a fascinating computational system. Just as a transistor flips to make a connection that was not previously available, and signals downstream its change in state, we signal through voluntary exchange our change in state, and in doing so we capture and distribute information about our perceptions.
We were cognizant of the division of reproductive labor, overly obsessed with the division of labor once we discovered it, and only in the past few generations have come to understand the importance of the division of knowledge determined by intellectual ability, and now we have begun to understand the division of perception and consideration is also genetically determined.
We got stock in the error of equality. Yet, we are perhaps one of the most unequal, if not THE MOST UNEQUAL creatures in existence – because we have greater capacity for inequality.Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, -
Humans are the Most Unequal Creatures on Earth
(interesting)
[H]UMANS divide (a)Perception, (b)Consideration, (c)Knowledge, (d)Labor, and (e) reproduction – and we negotiate through words and provide ‘facts’ or ‘data’ through acts of voluntary exchange.
We operate as a fascinating computational system. Just as a transistor flips to make a connection that was not previously available, and signals downstream its change in state, we signal through voluntary exchange our change in state, and in doing so we capture and distribute information about our perceptions.
We were cognizant of the division of reproductive labor, overly obsessed with the division of labor once we discovered it, and only in the past few generations have come to understand the importance of the division of knowledge determined by intellectual ability, and now we have begun to understand the division of perception and consideration is also genetically determined.
We got stock in the error of equality. Yet, we are perhaps one of the most unequal, if not THE MOST UNEQUAL creatures in existence – because we have greater capacity for inequality.Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, -
HUMANS ARE THE MOST UNEQUAL CREATURES ON EARTH (interesting) HUMANS divide (a)Pe
HUMANS ARE THE MOST UNEQUAL CREATURES ON EARTH
(interesting)
HUMANS divide (a)Perception, (b)Consideration, (c)Knowledge, (d)Labor, and (e) reproduction – and we negotiate through words and provide ‘facts’ or ‘data’ through acts of voluntary exchange.
We operate as a fascinating computational system. Just as a transistor flips to make a connection that was not previously available, and signals downstream its change in state, we signal through voluntary exchange our change in state, and in doing so we capture and distribute information about our perceptions.
We were cognizant of the division of reproductive labor, overly obsessed with the division of labor once we discovered it, and only in the past few generations have come to understand the importance of the division of knowledge determined by intellectual ability, and now we have begun to understand the division of perception and consideration is also genetically determined.
We got stock in the error of equality. Yet, we are perhaps one of the most unequal, if not THE MOST UNEQUAL creatures in existence – because we have greater capacity for inequality.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev,
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-18 03:14:00 UTC
-
STOMPING ON MARXIST BUNNIES —“The chief benefactor of consumer capitalism has
STOMPING ON MARXIST BUNNIES
—“The chief benefactor of consumer capitalism has been… consumers, of course. (Something Marx didn’t foresee.)”— Curt
—“False on two levels. First the benefit has been to both groups, largely for the bourgeois and Marx never said there would be no benefit for workers. Please learn something about Marxist theory.”— Well meaning fool.
RESPONSE
I know quite a bit about marxist theory, I just know even more about economics.
First: Empirically measure the two statements. Demonstrate the change in the relative consumption of lower and upper classes. At present all upper class consumption is relegated entirely to signaling and retirement savings. That’s the data. Period. Otherwise consumption is nearly linear all the way down into the lowest quintile.
Ergo, the chief benefactor has been a disproportionate increase in relative consumption of workers and a decrease in relative consumption of the upper classes. The reward has been vastly disproportionally weighted to consumers, while natural aristocracy (the upper classes) have been relatively impoverished. And my statement (like most of my statements) stands. Period.
Second: To say “marx never said something” is a deceptive argumentation technique from hermeneutic scripturalism. Regardless of what one says or argues, one’s theories must correspond to demonstrated behavior in objective reality.
Third: you engage in another marxist form of deceptive argumentation by casting labor (unskilled lower classes without market utility, and therefore without utility to other human beings) and consumers as the same. So your attempted deception (spin) is just that: marxist deception.
Marxist premise is that exploitation occurs in voluntary exchange, whereas the aristocratic premises is that unskilled classes with nothing to trade are a dead weight on productive society. That there is some ‘common good’ that is an excuse for theft and predation, rather than voluntary cooperation. yet they threaten revolution (violence against life and property) if their demands are not met. Which is no different from the upper and middle classes using violence to defend their property that was obtained in voluntary exchange.
But the fact of the matter is, that cooperation is only rational in the absence of parasitism. So if you have nothing to trade, no reason to cooperate, and you seek to use parasitism by verbal justification, political deception or physical insurrection, then you are merely an enemy that must either be tolerated, ostracized, or enslaved, or exterminated if necessary.
This is the Nietzchean interpretation of morality.
(The argumentative technique I am using is quite different from that of Christian apologetics. It’s purely moral: cooperation is only rational under voluntary exchange. And so I do not truck with altruistic punishment. I revel in it Nietzschean ridicule of it.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-16 09:08:00 UTC
-
The Dimensions of a Diagram
Guest post by Michael Phillip
The liberal right are attracted to order and plurality (e.g. F. A. Hayek), the anti-liberal Right are attracted to order and unity (e.g. Auguste Comte), the liberal Left to turbulence and plurality (e.g. John Stuart Mill) and the anti-liberal Left to turbulence and unity (e.g. Karl Marx).