[A]ristocracy can cooperate on behalf of our tribes, no matter what tribe we belong to. All aristocracy speaks the same language, and all of us can work to better our own tribes with the help of aristocrats from other tribes. We have no false allegiances. We have no political agendas. Our agenda is merely the advancement of the economic status of our tribes. Aristocracy under ‘higher tribalism’ is a very ‘human’ form of government. No ideologies are needed. No justification for and search for power over others is needed. All wee need is do to negotiate on behalf of our tribes large or small. Under democracy our differences are a source of conflict. Under aristocracy our differences are a source of opportunity for mutual benefit. If we are trapped in an agrarian society all that we can really do is improve the land, and fight over the land if we want greater wealth. But under industrial capitalism, we are not constrained by the productivity of our land, but by the productivity of our people. And the productivity of our people is determined by the productivity of our institutions in assisting the people in cooperating, by making possible the voluntary organization of production. I would much rather live in a world filled with many enterprising aristocrats feeding off the status given them by their tribes and families, than I would in a world of bureaucrats living off the status obtained by creating conflict using ideology. And I am pretty sure that no moral man can justify any other arrangement for any reason other than the selfish accumulation of power, and the power to oppress others to conform to his will. All aristocracy requires is the grant of property rights and the reciprocal guarantee of those rights – and a militia consisting of all able bodied men equally willing to guarantee those rights.
Theme: Class
-
ARISTOCRACY AND TRIBALISM Dude, I do not think of people’s race except in descri
ARISTOCRACY AND TRIBALISM
Dude, I do not think of people’s race except in descriptive terms, the same way I point out the color of a shirt, car or house when describing it. There are great men. If I have to think of the person’s race to determine if they are great men, then they aren’t. Either a man carries his water or he doesn’t. His race doesn’t matter. If he makes it matter, then unfortunately I have to make it matter too.
One of the reasons that I find Aristocracy so appealing, is that it’s appealing to EVERY TRIBE out there. It’s GOOD FOR ALL tribes. It doesn’t matter if this tribe or that tribe has better or worse individuals. What matters is that aristocracy can construct the educational and commercial order necessary for that tribe to participate in the global economy.
The only reason race is a problem, is the denial of it, and the fantasy that all our tribes are equal. They aren’t any more equal than families are equal or classes are equal. We’re just not equal in our traits. But we are equal in the market where we are anonymous and invisible to one another, and equal in our interests in helping one another.
Aristocracy around the world is the same. It’s the bottom 3/4 of any tribe that is materially different, and its in their interests and possibly in mankind’s interest to be genetically different.
The only reason to desire large numbers is to conquer people or colonize people according to your favorite biases.
I can’t for the life of me understand how the world would not be better constructed of 5M person city states rather than 1 billion person empire-states, except that big states can conduct bigger wars.
If the head of tribe/state X race Y talks to the head of tribe/state A race B get together it probably will work out just fine if they want to conduct a trade. But the minute tribe C tries to increase its dominion nothing good comes out of it except war.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-04 15:00:00 UTC
-
Aristocracy and Tribalism, vs Democracy and Racism
[D]amn it. I do not think of people’s race except in descriptive terms, the same way I point out the color of a shirt, car or house when describing it. There are great men. If I have to think of the person’s race to determine if they are great men, then they aren’t. Either a man carries his water or he doesn’t. His race doesn’t matter. If he makes it matter, then unfortunately I have to make it matter too. One of the reasons that I find Aristocracy so appealing, is that it’s appealing to EVERY TRIBE out there. It’s GOOD FOR ALL tribes. It doesn’t matter if this tribe or that tribe has better or worse individuals. What matters is that aristocracy can construct the educational and commercial order necessary for that tribe to participate in the global economy. The only reason race is a problem, is the denial of it, and the fantasy that all our tribes are equal. They aren’t any more equal than families are equal or classes are equal. We’re just not equal in our traits. But we are equal in the market where we are anonymous and invisible to one another, and equal in our interests in helping one another. [A]ristocracy around the world is the same. It’s the bottom 3/4 of any tribe that is materially different, and its in their interests and possibly in mankind’s interest to be genetically different. The only reason to desire large numbers is to conquer people or colonize people according to your favorite biases. I can’t for the life of me understand how the world would not be better constructed of 5M person city states rather than 1 billion person empire-states, except that big states can conduct bigger wars. If the head of tribe/state X race Y talks to the head of tribe/state A race B get together it probably will work out just fine if they want to conduct a trade. But the minute tribe C tries to increase its dominion nothing good comes out of it except war.
-
Aristocracy and Tribalism, vs Democracy and Racism
[D]amn it. I do not think of people’s race except in descriptive terms, the same way I point out the color of a shirt, car or house when describing it. There are great men. If I have to think of the person’s race to determine if they are great men, then they aren’t. Either a man carries his water or he doesn’t. His race doesn’t matter. If he makes it matter, then unfortunately I have to make it matter too. One of the reasons that I find Aristocracy so appealing, is that it’s appealing to EVERY TRIBE out there. It’s GOOD FOR ALL tribes. It doesn’t matter if this tribe or that tribe has better or worse individuals. What matters is that aristocracy can construct the educational and commercial order necessary for that tribe to participate in the global economy. The only reason race is a problem, is the denial of it, and the fantasy that all our tribes are equal. They aren’t any more equal than families are equal or classes are equal. We’re just not equal in our traits. But we are equal in the market where we are anonymous and invisible to one another, and equal in our interests in helping one another. [A]ristocracy around the world is the same. It’s the bottom 3/4 of any tribe that is materially different, and its in their interests and possibly in mankind’s interest to be genetically different. The only reason to desire large numbers is to conquer people or colonize people according to your favorite biases. I can’t for the life of me understand how the world would not be better constructed of 5M person city states rather than 1 billion person empire-states, except that big states can conduct bigger wars. If the head of tribe/state X race Y talks to the head of tribe/state A race B get together it probably will work out just fine if they want to conduct a trade. But the minute tribe C tries to increase its dominion nothing good comes out of it except war.
-
“From the behavior of many rich people we can infer they live constantly terrori
—“From the behavior of many rich people we can infer they live
constantly terrorized that other rich people think that they are
poorer than they actually are.”— Taleb
Well, as a former member of that set, the thrill of the competition in one’s field, despite that much of it is a lottery effect, is exceeded only by the excitement of meeting and working with increasingly interesting rather than tedious and mundane people, on projects and ideas that are increasingly interesting rather than tedious and mundane.
Nassim dealt with the (exasperating and epistemically challenged) financial sector, but engineers, entrepreneurs, scientists, athletes and artists tend to be fairly interesting – and they fill you with awe and humility. And that experience is as awe inspiring on a daily basis as is the feeling of revelation one experienced from one’s most profound professors.
So we tend to forget that what separates the west from the rest is heroism. Egalitarian heroism. And the absurd excesses of the upper economic classes are a minor side effect of the cultural processes that create them. And that cultural process is what produces, when not suppresses by authority or mysticism, the rapid evolution of western civilization, despite its status as a small, poor, backward people on the margins of the bronze age.
Be glad we produce such extremes, because of the benefits we obtain from the cultural process that creates them.
Revel in it. If there is anything in man that approaches the divine, that is it.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-03 09:42:00 UTC
-
THE THREE TYPES OF LIBERTARIAN LEFTISTS
THE THREE TYPES OF LIBERTARIAN LEFTISTS
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-03 04:22:00 UTC
-
Americans are largely embarrassing and I cringe whenever I hear them. But its re
Americans are largely embarrassing and I cringe whenever I hear them.
But its really a distorted picture of the world. Upper classes behave well in most cultures and the lower classes do not.
The difference is that your fat, ugly, ignorant, fool two generations from peasantry, in america has the wealth to travel.
Be rarely seen never heard and keep your ignorant observations to yourself. If asked assume your opinion is wrong. Because it probably is.
We spend a lot of time trying to make our people unjustifiably confident.
In doing so we created a nation of fools.
Source date (UTC): 2014-06-30 13:35:00 UTC
-
MARK ANDREESSEN ON PIKETTY’S NONSENSE Timothy B. Lee: This relates to another to
MARK ANDREESSEN ON PIKETTY’S NONSENSE
Timothy B. Lee: This relates to another topic I wanted to ask about. You’ve had some harsh words for Thomas Piketty, the French economist whose new book is trendy in liberal circles right now. Do you think he’s right that we’re going to see a growing gap between the rich and the poor in the coming years?
Marc Andreessen:The funny thing about Piketty is that he has a lot more faith in returns on invested capital than any professional investor I’ve ever met. It’s actually very interesting about his book. This is exactly what you’d expect form a French socialist economist. He assumes it’s really easy to put money in the market for 40 years or 80 years or 100 years and have it compound at these amazing rates. He never explains how that’s supposed to happen.
Every investment manager I know is sweating the opposite problem, which is: what do I do? Where do I get the growth? I can’t get into the public market, so I have to go into the private market. The problem in the private market is there isn’t much growth. Maybe a dozen hedge funds. After that they’re not that good. The returns degrade down to S&P 500 levels.
Timothy B. Lee: That’s not so bad is it? The S&P 500 has returned 6 or 7 percent real growth for the last few decades.
Marc Andreessen:Yeah, 6 or 7 percent. But if you look at the last 15 years they’re much less than that. Jeremy Siegel put out his book about how there’s never been a 10-year period where you lose money in the stock market — right at the beginning of a very long period where you lose money for 10-plus years.
Piketty thinks it’s really easy to compound capital at scale. There’s just a lot of evidence that that’s not true. The shining example of that is: where are all the big companies and the big families?
If you look at what’s actually happening in the Forbes 400 and the Fortune 500, churn is accelerating. One year it’s some real estate family, and then the next year it’s like, “There’s Larry Page, where did he come from?” Somehow Piketty looks through that to a world where all this change is going to just stop. [He has] this idea that normal is 18th-century feudal France, and we’re going to go back to it.
He does this other dodge where the 20th century doesn’t conform to his theory, but that’s because of the wars and economic dislocations. And so it’s like the 21st century is predicted to be much more peaceful and calm. I don’t know about you but that’s not what I see happening. I look around the world right now and I see exciting things happening that’s causing a lot of changes.
Source date (UTC): 2014-06-29 01:29:00 UTC
-
ANTHEM 😉 (with anti-rothbardian lyrics) Lunatic fringe I know you’re out there
http://www.songlyrics.com/red-rider/lunatic-fringe-lyrics/#dpygYzzZiO2j00wx.99ARISTOCRATIC ANTHEM 😉
(with anti-rothbardian lyrics)
Lunatic fringe
I know you’re out there
You’re hiding in the open
And you hold your meetings
I can hear you crawling
We know what you’re after
We’re wise to you this time
We won’t let you stop our laughter
Lunatic fringe
In the twilight of your dreaming
This is open season
And you won’t get too far
‘Cause you gotta blame someone
For your own confusion
But we’re on guard this time
Against your usual deceptions
We can hear your desperation
No you’re not going to go quietly
We can hear your panic
On the wires and the highways
Lunatic fringe
Can know you hear us coming
Can you feel the resistance?
Can you feel the thunder?
Source date (UTC): 2014-06-26 07:48:00 UTC
-
MORAL INTUITION IS JUST YOUR GENES TALKING That’s it. You might be able to intui
MORAL INTUITION IS JUST YOUR GENES TALKING
That’s it. You might be able to intuit very simple common moral values, but your gender, social class, economic class, and family structure are reflections of your genes, genetic history, and are simple expressions of those genes.
And your genes are competing with other genes – either with more numerous “worse” genes, or less numerous “better” genes, for higher status, better allies, and better mates. And as such we advocate if not outright demand adherence to our moral code in order to cooperate with others. We offer cooperation to those who benefit our genes, and deny it to those who compete with our genes.
And what little reason we can muster, and struggle to put under the discipline of our will, is subject to the multitudinous whispers of those genes as they influence our intuition (subconscious), and our intuition influences our perception (consciousness), and our consciousness influences our reason.
Our will is vastly outnumbered by an invisible hierarchy of secret police that conspires to serve our genes regardless of our reason and will.
And so we cannot rely upon our moral intuition to determine what is best for anything other than ourselves. We require measures of everyone else’s moral intuitions – the voices of their genes.
But even if we possess such data does that mean that there is some optimum moral code for all of us to adhere to? Not really. We are optimistic cooperators, and constant competitors.
While we cannot agree upon ends, since that would mean the willing sacrifice of some of our genes for those of others, and result in dysgenic devolution, which cannot be cast as ‘good’, we can agree to cooperate on means, such that we do not constrain one another’s genes, nor assume we have the wisdom to choose which genes best suit human reality.
PROPERTARIANISM IS CALCULABLE – THE LOGICAL ARTICULATION OF INTUITIONS TO RATIONAL FORM
Propertarianism, the missing logic of cooperation, the missing logic of ethics, the missing logic of politics, allows us to discuss all moral systems in transparent, rational terms.
Praxeology was a failure. But it doesn’t have to be. Propertarianism repairs praxeology.
Source date (UTC): 2014-06-26 02:51:00 UTC