Gender and Class Distributions: Outliers do not help us with general rules, they only tell us not to erect barriers. Distributions tell us general rules. You cannot construct a civilization out of outliers. That is a contradiction in terms.
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-09 08:25:00 UTC
[M]y objective is the achievement of liberty. But there are very few means of achieving it.
For all intents and purposes, classes are genetic in origin: reproductive desirability, intelligence, impulsivity, aggression determine your class as much as do your parents norms.
As a rule of thumb, the races act as political blocks (kinship) and they possess different distributions of abilities, forming a racial stratification of means, with east asians, Askenazim and northern europeans on the higher side and others on the lower side. As far as I know this difference in distributions means only that there are more people in the lower classes of some races than there are in the lower classes of others. And that the reason for this is the reproductive challenge of the circumpolar peoples, plus the Ashkenizi outcast of those who can’t pass the tests of admission; the northern european use of manorialism to reduce breeding of the lower classes; the asian systemic murder of anyone and everyone with the least impulsivity.
The problem of racial conflict is one of defense of our lower classes. Our white lower classes are justifiably racist, because their elites have abandoned them and redistributed their kinship privileges to other groups.
EQUALITY
Equality is impossible without tyranny. The only way to approach equality is either homogenous populations of near-kin, (the nordic model) or heterogenous populations with marginally indifferent abilities (aristocratic classes, and suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses).
An advanced economy requires sortition: the voluntary organization of production by natural ability. Any group that does not practice natural meritocracy will be crushed and impoverished by those that do. (because that is the logic and the evidence).
THREE POSSIBLE AVENUES FOR ACHIEVING EQUALITY:
(a) Tyranny – forcible organization of production and forcible redistribution (the anglo model);
(b) Homogeneity (kinship) of small states which voluntarily organize and redistribute, (the nordic model) or;
(c) Dramatic reduction of the reproduction of the lower classes (those below 105-107) for larger states, in which all members can contribute to production. (ancient model)
That is it. As far as I now human beings can and will possess liberty only under (b) and (c). And only those models can produce both relative equality and relative liberty.
ONLY RACISTS CAN DISAGREE
If you disagree with this then you are de-facto arguing in favor of racism.
As far as I know my argument stands under all conditions no matter what.
[M]y objective is the achievement of liberty. But there are very few means of achieving it.
For all intents and purposes, classes are genetic in origin: reproductive desirability, intelligence, impulsivity, aggression determine your class as much as do your parents norms.
As a rule of thumb, the races act as political blocks (kinship) and they possess different distributions of abilities, forming a racial stratification of means, with east asians, Askenazim and northern europeans on the higher side and others on the lower side. As far as I know this difference in distributions means only that there are more people in the lower classes of some races than there are in the lower classes of others. And that the reason for this is the reproductive challenge of the circumpolar peoples, plus the Ashkenizi outcast of those who can’t pass the tests of admission; the northern european use of manorialism to reduce breeding of the lower classes; the asian systemic murder of anyone and everyone with the least impulsivity.
The problem of racial conflict is one of defense of our lower classes. Our white lower classes are justifiably racist, because their elites have abandoned them and redistributed their kinship privileges to other groups.
EQUALITY
Equality is impossible without tyranny. The only way to approach equality is either homogenous populations of near-kin, (the nordic model) or heterogenous populations with marginally indifferent abilities (aristocratic classes, and suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses).
An advanced economy requires sortition: the voluntary organization of production by natural ability. Any group that does not practice natural meritocracy will be crushed and impoverished by those that do. (because that is the logic and the evidence).
THREE POSSIBLE AVENUES FOR ACHIEVING EQUALITY:
(a) Tyranny – forcible organization of production and forcible redistribution (the anglo model);
(b) Homogeneity (kinship) of small states which voluntarily organize and redistribute, (the nordic model) or;
(c) Dramatic reduction of the reproduction of the lower classes (those below 105-107) for larger states, in which all members can contribute to production. (ancient model)
That is it. As far as I now human beings can and will possess liberty only under (b) and (c). And only those models can produce both relative equality and relative liberty.
ONLY RACISTS CAN DISAGREE
If you disagree with this then you are de-facto arguing in favor of racism.
As far as I know my argument stands under all conditions no matter what.
[P]eter Boettke posted an article by Paul Krugman yesterday which referred to the divisions in economics – with derision.
And it’s been bothering me all night:
Progressives, libertarians, and conservatives demonstrate an inter-temporal division of reproductive labor in their moral biases and cognitive biases.
So why wouldn’t economists follow the same moral, inter-temporal division of labor?
Well, they do. All humans do.
Austrians represent the conservative long term: accumulation and competitiveness, and new Keynesian progressives the short term: consumption and reproduction.
The question is whether consumption/dysgenia or accumulation/eugenia is preferable.
This is the central proposition. And we avoid answering it just as much as our ancestors avoided the question of the existence of gods.
Until we answer that question all economic debate is just obscurant deception as a means of avoiding the central question of economics: what is it that we are solving for?
I can answer that question because western history answered it for us.
[P]eter Boettke posted an article by Paul Krugman yesterday which referred to the divisions in economics – with derision.
And it’s been bothering me all night:
Progressives, libertarians, and conservatives demonstrate an inter-temporal division of reproductive labor in their moral biases and cognitive biases.
So why wouldn’t economists follow the same moral, inter-temporal division of labor?
Well, they do. All humans do.
Austrians represent the conservative long term: accumulation and competitiveness, and new Keynesian progressives the short term: consumption and reproduction.
The question is whether consumption/dysgenia or accumulation/eugenia is preferable.
This is the central proposition. And we avoid answering it just as much as our ancestors avoided the question of the existence of gods.
Until we answer that question all economic debate is just obscurant deception as a means of avoiding the central question of economics: what is it that we are solving for?
I can answer that question because western history answered it for us.
http://blog.independent.org/2014/12/01/income-inequality-is-a-statistical-artifact/
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-02 11:16:00 UTC
http://m.livescience.com/48951-surnames-social-mobility.html?adbid=10152407455481761&adbpl=fb&adbpr=30478646760&cmpid=514627_20141201_36484777
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-02 10:31:00 UTC
—“A people are less without their elites. But elites are nothing without their people. And that’s what they’re about to learn.”— Eli Harman
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-30 13:37:00 UTC
Pretty happy with my stance on racism now. Ties in with paying the lower classes for construction of capitalism (commons, property rights and the voluntary organization of production). That chapter is ready.
Not really happy that the impetus for addressing it was provided by the kind of cop I have no respect for shooting an idiot that got out of hand. But the end is that I know how to talk about race and racism now as a solvable problem.
Thanks all who helped.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-30 08:14:00 UTC
MORE ON RACE : THE DESIRE FOR LIBERTY
My objective is achievement of liberty. But there are very few means of achieving it.
For all intents and purposes, classes are genetic in origin: reproductive desirability, intelligence, impulsivity, aggression determine your class as much as do your parents norms.
As a rule of thumb, the races act as political blocks (kinship) and they possess different distributions of abilities, forming a racial stratification of means, with east asians, Askenazim and northern europeans on the higher side and others on the lower side. As far as I know this difference in distributions means only that there are more people in the lower classes of some races than there are in the lower classes of others. And that the reason for this is the reproductive challenge of the circumpolar peoples, plus the Ashkenizi outcast of those who can’t pass the tests of admission; the northern european use of manorialism to reduce breeding of the lower classes; the asian systemic murder of anyone and everyone with the least impulsivity.
The problem of racial conflict is one of defense of our lower classes. Our white lower classes are justifiably racist, because their elites have abandoned them and redistributed their kinship privileges to other groups.
EQUALITY
Equality is impossible without tyranny. The only way to approach equality is either homogenous populations of near-kin, (the nordic model) or heterogenous populations with marginally indifferent abilities (aristocratic classes, and suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses).
An advanced economy requires sortition: the voluntary organization of production by natural ability. Any group that does not practice natural meritocracy will be crushed and impoverished by those that do. (because that is the logic and the evidence).
THREE POSSIBLE AVENUES FOR ACHIEVING EQUALITY:
(a) Tyranny – forcible organization of production and forcible redistribution (the anglo model);
(b) Homogeneity (kinship) of small states which voluntarily organize and redistribute, (the nordic model) or;
(c) Dramatic reduction of the reproduction of the lower classes (those below 105-107) for larger states, in which all members can contribute to production. (ancient model)
That is it. As far as I now human beings can and will possess liberty only under (b) and (c). And only those models can produce both relative equality and relative liberty.
ONLY RACISTS CAN DISAGREE
If you disagree with this then you are de-facto arguing in favor of racism.
As far as I know my argument stands under all conditions no matter what.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-30 05:10:00 UTC