Theme: Class

  • The value of direct redistribution is (a) that the proletariat will greedily sta

    The value of direct redistribution is (a) that the proletariat will greedily starve the state, and (b) they will have money to spend to create demand. (c) if they are shareholders, and the market is a corporation, then they have standing to directly sue any individual, public or private within that market.

    It’s mandatory for us to transform political discourse from ‘morality’ to ‘voluntary transfers’ and property rights. Because only voluntary transfers are moral, and only the operational visibility of voluntary transfers allows scientific analysis of the voluntary and involuntary transfers.

    We must maintain that competition is intuitively an competition that is immoral to many, however, the outcome is virtuous – particularly if all competition can be pressed into the market.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-19 04:22:00 UTC

  • ARISTOCRACY IS JUST SELF DEFENSE We had it backwards. Aristocracy simply didn’t

    ARISTOCRACY IS JUST SELF DEFENSE

    We had it backwards. Aristocracy simply didn’t adapt to the change in membership in the cult of property rights fast enough.

    If you can’t convince the anti-aristocrats to go along and create an ‘aristocracy of everybody’ promised by the enlightenment, then the alternative is natural Aristocracy: Self Defense.

    Pay people to get married, cohabitate, and breed. Pay the poor and unable, not to have children. Tax, impoverish, and punish those that are dependent. Care for the physically disabled.

    Just how it is. Otherwise. No families. No morality. No high trust. Married class vs unmarried class warfare.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-16 04:23:00 UTC

  • THE ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYBODY, IS A FAILURE It isnt’ just that the majority canno

    THE ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYBODY, IS A FAILURE

    It isnt’ just that the majority cannot join the aristocracy, and earn, use and keep property rights. It is that they do not desire to earn, use and keep property rights. People want the benefits of aristocracy but not the effort. They want to be serfs. They want to be taken care of. They don’t want to bear risks. They don’t want to compete, And they aren’t able to. And they demonstrate it at every opportunity.

    Having empirically proven that the enlightenment effort to bring all of mankind into the aristocracy, has been a catastrophic failure, and at present is threatening western civilization; the question is then, whether we abandon the enlightenment goal of an ‘aristocracy of everybody’, and demand property rights by force of arms once again, as we previously civilized the barbarians of teh world, or whether we let ourselves, our civilization and aristocracy die.

    Not with a roar of triumph. Not with a whimper. But with silent cowardice.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-15 13:10:00 UTC

  • A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN CLASS THEORY PART 1: AWARENESS, INFLUENCE, INCENT

    A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN CLASS THEORY

    PART 1: AWARENESS, INFLUENCE, INCENTIVE AND COERCION

    SPECTRUM OF INFLUENCE

    (a) Ignorance – none

    (b) Awareness – speech

    (c) Influence – speech

    (d) Incentive – exchange

    (e) Coercion – violence

    (f) Enslavement – perpetual violence

    INCENTIVES

    Incentives are factors that motivate and influence the actions of individuals. Something that an influencer can use to provide a motive for a person to choose a particular course of action.

    Organized cooperative activities in a social setting — such as cooperation for the purpose of economic production — depends upon each of the participants having some sort of incentive to behave in the required cooperative fashion.

    Different societies (and even different organizations within the same society) vary considerably in the nature of the incentive systems upon which they characteristically rely to organize their common projects. — from Johnson (with edits)

    I. PERSONAL CATEGORIES OF INCENTIVES (Johnson)

    ——————————————–

    Incentives may be classified according to a number of different schemes, but one of the more useful classifications subdivides incentives into three general types: MORAL INCENTIVES, COERCIVE INCENTIVES and REMUNERATIVE INCENTIVES.

    A person has a COERCIVE INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way when it has been made known to him that failure to do so will result in some form of physical aggression being directed at him by other members of the collectivity in the form of inflicting pain or physical harm on him or his loved ones, depriving him of his freedom of movement, or perhaps confiscating or destroying his treasured possessions.

    A person has a MORAL INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way when he has been taught to believe that it is the “right” or “proper” or “admirable” thing to do. If he behaves as others expect him to, he may expect the approval or even the admiration of the other members of the collectivity and enjoy an enhanced sense of acceptance or self-esteem. If he behaves improperly, he may expect verbal expressions of condemnation, scorn, ridicule or even ostracism from the collectivity, and he may experience unpleasant feelings of guilt, shame or self-condemnation.

    A person has a REMUNERATIVE INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way if it has been made known to him that doing so will result in some form of material reward he will not otherwise receive. If he behaves as desired, he will receive some specified amount of a valuable good or service (or money with which he can purchase whatever he wishes) in exchange.

    All known societies employ all three sorts of incentives to at least some degree in order to evoke from its members the necessary degree of cooperation for the society to survive and flourish. However, different societies differ radically in the relative proportions of these different kinds of incentives used within their characteristic mix of incentives.

    II. POLITICAL: THREE COERCIVE TECHNOLOGIES (Doolittle)

    ————————————————-

    The Three Coercive Technologies.

    1) FORCE:

    Tool: Physical Coercion

    Benefit: Avoidance Benefit

    Strategic use: Rapid but expensive.

    “Seize opportunities quickly with a concentrated effort.”

    2) WORDS:

    Tool: Verbal, Moral Coercion

    Benefit: Ostracization/Inclusion, and Insurance benefit

    Strategic Use: slow, but inexpensive.

    “Wait for opportunity by accumulating consensus.”

    3) EXCHANGE: Remunerative Coercion With Material Benefit –

    Strategic use: efficient in cost and time, only if you have the resources.

    III. STRATEGIC: POWER / THREE TYPES OF POWER

    —————————————–

    Power is defined as possessing any of the various means by which to influence the probability of outcomes in a group or polity using one of THE THREE COERCIVE TECHNOLOGIES.

    Power is the ability to Influence, Coerce or Compel individuals or groups to act more according to one’s wishes than they would without the use of influence, coercion or compelling.

    There are only three forms of power possible:

    1) Populist Power (Religion, Entertainment, Public Intellectuals)

    vs

    2) Procedural Power: Political, Judicial, and Military Power (Soldiers, Judges and Politicians)

    vs

    3) Economic Power (people with wealth either earned or gained through tax appropriation).

    It is possible and often preferable to combine all three forms of power in order to coerce people most effectively. Conversely, it is possible and preferable to create an institutional framework in politics that restricts the ability to combine different forms of power in an effort to constrain power.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-14 06:09:00 UTC

  • THE REASON YOU USE THE WORD ‘LIBERTY’ AND NOT ‘ARISTOCRACY’? Because you are car

    THE REASON YOU USE THE WORD ‘LIBERTY’ AND NOT ‘ARISTOCRACY’?

    Because you are carrying around the enlightenment error that anyone other than egalitarian aristocracy actually desires liberty. They don’t.

    Aristocracy:

    1) Private Property Rights in exchange for contributing Perpetual Military Service in the defense of private property rights of all who have earned them.

    2) Egalitarianism: anyone willing to also grant rights and contribute service can also gain those rights by contributing that service.

    3) Denial, by promise of violence, of any and all concentration of power sufficient to alter the distribution of property and property rights.

    4) The Absolute Nuclear Family and Prohibition on inbreeding.

    5) Chivalry: Social Status Through Charity, and service as well as through arms.

    6) Decision Making by majority vote of those who have earned property rights.

    Aristocracy is tribal paternity and property rights, open to all who will equally grant them, and defend them.

    LIBERTY EXPRESSED AS A ‘RIGHT’ IS AN ATTEMPT TO GAIN PROPERTY RIGHTS AT A DISCOUNT, AND NOTHING ELSE.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-12 12:02:00 UTC

  • Ordinary people in this country are sweet. But every professional I encounter is

    Ordinary people in this country are sweet. But every professional I encounter is a walking criminal enterprise.

    Its like the french had their revolution so that they could act like effete totalitarians, and the Ukrainians got their independence so that they could act like fucking Boyars.

    You can take the peasant out of the manor but you cant take the peasant out of the peasant.

    Its not that the governments is more corrupt than the american, its that the culture of the east remains a peasant culture.

    Its a purely predatory society.

    Argh.

    You cant help them. Just cant.

    Too bad. Very sweet people.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-12 03:55:00 UTC

  • HELPING OTHERS WITH OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY…. … is just a cheap way to demonstr

    HELPING OTHERS WITH OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY….

    … is just a cheap way to demonstrate conspicuous consumption because of your wealth. It’s Status seeking. It’s selfish. If you want to change the world, then pay for it yourself.

    It doesnt take much. Just a little self sacrifice.

    But everyone is a wanna-be. A pretender.

    “Artificial feel-good.”

    If it doesn’t cost it doesn’t have value.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-10 15:03:00 UTC

  • LIBERAL ATTACK ON BLACK CULTURE AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE BLACK FAMILY ‘BY STUP

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzNYCPZXvlwTHE LIBERAL ATTACK ON BLACK CULTURE AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE BLACK FAMILY ‘BY STUPID WHITE PEOPLE’.

    (I mean, colonialism, communism, and our evangelical export of democracy wasnt enough damage? We need to destroy a whole Race’s chance of economic success?)

    Liberals only like black people that act like they desire them to. Because when black people are commercially successful that means that liberals can’t conspicuously consume status signals by demonstrating that they’re higher than these ‘pitiful’ people who need the help of gracious (selfish destructive) liberals.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-10 06:37:00 UTC

  • Thought you might get a kick out of this. Seeing the left make a connection betw

    Thought you might get a kick out of this. Seeing the left make a connection between Libertarianism and The Aristocracy.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-06 12:08:00 UTC

  • THE SOURCE AND PURPOSE OF PAUL KRUGMAN’S INTELLECTUAL CORRUPTION (explanatory po

    THE SOURCE AND PURPOSE OF PAUL KRUGMAN’S INTELLECTUAL CORRUPTION

    (explanatory power)(important)

    “The Conscience Of An Immoral Man”

    In a series of recent articles, Krugman suggests that there is only one answer for Europe and the world, and that is, for the Germans to redistribute to the periphery.

    But that’s false. The opposite answer is that the periphery borrow to REFORM themselves. And when I say something is ‘moral’ I mean that it forces an involuntary transfer – a theft. One cannot dismiss morality unless one dismisses theft. That’s what it means to be immoral: to steal indirectly, and anonymously.

    Once we include opportunity costs and the subset of social capital we now call ‘moral capital’, we see that material trade and consumption is just a minority of the human economy. And that the economy that makes material trade and consumption possible is the social and moral economy. And that theft of opportunity, or the various forms of free riding, or theft by immorality, are all equivalent forms of theft.

    So, Krugman’s solution is immoral. The conservative solution is of course. moral. Because conservatism in the west is a defense of moral capital. Incentives are incentives. Actions have cumulative consequences. Money is only a unit of measure. Human beings keep account of not only money but opportunity costs. And what Krugman is saying is that Germans pay opportunity costs and should involuntarily transfer them to the periphery.

    The trade is only IMBALANCED because of BEHAVIOR then it is not a trade imbalance, it is an incentive.

    ANALYSIS

    There is a very great difference between the imbalances in trade, education, technology, resources, and infrastructure and the imbalances in trust, discipline, time preference, and hard work.

    And it is IMMORAL and COUNTER PRODUCTIVE if we do NOT use trade imbalances to transform those who have less trust, less discipline, work less.

    The ongoing evolution of social capital requires that we punish free riders. And Free Riding IS THE PROBLEM that all societies must suppress. It is necessary for cooperation.

    SOURCE OF HIS IMMORALITY

    Paul studied trade between different STATES – plus he has deeply internalized both jewish ghetto ethics, and the need to justify the failure of his people to hold land through adoption of land-holder moral codes. (Albeit as a survival strategy.) Furthermore, for cultural reasons, he is an anti-aristocratic activist.

    Like many people with specialized knowledge he uses overwhelming bis in all his arguments to mask the very simple, but catastrophic errors he makes on a daily basis: that it is necessary to conform to germanic high trust behavior and institutions if one desires a high trust society, and the economic productivity of the anglo-german sphere.

    Conversely, and much more importantly, it is IMPOSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN THE HIGH TRUST SOCIETY by policy and will rather than culture and incentive. Free riding is the primary problem of economic and social development and why the nuclear family is so important (if fragile.) If people see free-riding, then they will punish it. If free riding is pervasive, people will STOP over-contributing.

    I cannot really tell if Krugman understands the importance of the high trust ethic, or if his ghetto ethics, hatred of white europeans, and his fascination with states and trade simply serve blind him to it.

    But given his obvious joy at expressing ridicule, and his facility with intentionally OBSCURING the moral and necessary constraint of free riding, with the status signals obtained from using charity as a means of conspicuous consumption, I would say that Krugman is nothing more than one more exceptionally verbally talented man, using loaded and obscurant language, as a means of conducting MacDonald’s insight into the damaging nature of

    Each expression of Krugman’s rhetorical glee, is a status perk he obtains, demonstrating both his conspicuous consumption, and therefore his status, while at the same time destroying the western high trust society by encouraging, in every way possible, free riding, rent seeking.

    THE BROADER CONTEXT

    If Noam Chomsky is the high priest, then Paul Krugman is the parliamentary head of the “Culture Of Critique” that, by use of obscurant language, is a systemic means of conducting intentional fraud: it is ‘the prestige’ in the verbal sleight of hand; the gesture that hides the true action: **Obtaining status by demonstrating conspicuous consumption using other people’s money, to increase free riding and rent seeking, in order to destroy the high trust society – which is the FIRST CAUSE OF ECONOMIC EXCELLENCE.**

    Once the speaker is possessed of status, then the ‘virtuously destructive’ cycle is complete. He has free reign to use that status, obtained by fraud and theft, to continue and expand his theft.

    Understood in this light, we see both the legitimacy of Paul Krugman’s insight into interstate trade, and the moral criminality of his rhetoric as an expression of the ongoing damage of the Cultural of Critique to western civilization and the high trust society.

    One can use verbal intelligence to articulate the truth. Or one can use verbal intelligence to construct obscurant language that by ‘the prestige’ – the award of status – under the rubric of care-taking, by encouraging people and policy makers to do just the opposite of what they intend: to destroy their high trust society by facilitating in every way possible the rent seeking and free riding that make the high trust society possible.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    ——–

    Note: I’ll improve this argument a bit. This is my first draft. But I’ve pretty much got the idea down. And I think I’ve united finally, Popper and Praxeology through operational language, fixing both of them. I am not sure how successful that I will be with the argument that obscurant (unscientific, non-operational) language is required for moral speech, because operational language places a high barrier for knowledge on any speaker. But if one makes public speech, about public matters, he is offering a product to the market, and is bound by warrantee.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-06 03:20:00 UTC