Apr 16, 2020, 10:32 PM Define how you use the term socialism. I’m assuming you mean european socialism (french-german) not jewish socialism (jewish russian). Socialism means state control of the means of production. Mixed economy means using the borrowing power of the state to strategically finance what the private sector cannot or will not. My opinion is the same as most major economists – that the state does not capture the proceeds of those investments and return them to the common people. My opinion is that we should finance repatriation of all non-trivial industry AND automate the heck out of it, and that the state should take non-voting interest in these companies and demand dividends as income for the people. My opinion is that the financial sector is predatory and that consumer credit should be purely statistical and direct from the treasury eliminating all rent seeking from the financial sector. My opinion is that liquidity necessary to generate demand should not be distributed to the financial sector for credit multipliers, but as cash distribution directly to citizens that business and finance compete for. My opinion is that education is largely wasted income other than the high end stem fields, and that all other schooling takes one year to two years non-resident at most. My opinion is that teaching and research staffs should be separate corporations with separate controls, and that phd and research programs should be well funded and largely state funded. My opinion is that the military used to fund basic research, and that presently, basic research must be faked under medical or non-military, when in general the state should treat investment in research as a venture capitalists, seeking returns for the polity in longer time horizons than other peoples. My opinion is that the best education in the world should be offered to all citizens from the best educators in the world, and that this should be a continuous process, and it should cost almost nothing (200 per course or something) My opinion is that if universities admit students that if the student doesn’t compete two years or transfer the university eats the money. And that the university carries the loan entirely, even if the loan is borrow by the university from the government. My opinion is that if we did this we’d be back to one income households just fine. Edit
Theme: Coercion
-
Without the Militia Men Will Not Own the Commons.
Apr 21, 2020, 7:40 AM The problem is getting the rest of the world into middle class manners, ethics, morals, and values. We can only do that if the self, the family, and the commons are equally valued and defended regardless of class. The minute you give up on your other classes you give up on the commons. The same is true for heterogeneity. Create conflict between groups and we give up on the commons, and devolve to self and family.
—“There are more books published in Spanish in any one year than there have been in the entire history of Arab publishing.”—
Feminine, present, experiential civilization. There are very few arab intellectuals. Those few, say some version of the same thing “we live in our emotions not in our reason, we can read but we are still illiterate, we have freedom but no discipline.” This is the problem with ritual-cultures. it’s extremely successful at solving the problem of social insecurity (mindfulness). It only solves part of the problem and amplifies the rest by making agency impossible. Same for fundamentalism in christianity: it makes wonderful citizens and families – perhaps the best in the world – and prepares people for commercial society – but at the cost of needing a parental martial empirical aristocracy to defend, rule, and govern them. One of the reasons the french lost to the english was the combination of their effeminacy and excessive faith – the same excessive effeminacy and faith that they demonstrate today. (although you have to read letters from the period prior to agincourt to see how faith-insane they were.) The hindus remain caste-and-family, on the effeminate side, and socially lazy and irresponsible – so they are wonderful people lacking the hostility of the muslims, but can’t end familial corruption endemic in the society, nor do they have the military like the west and china to enforce policy so that a non-corrupt bureaucracy can evolve. I don’t complain about the chinese and koreans other than their women are as spoiled and hyper-consumptive and civilization destroying as western women and their males are further gone than western men because they were further gone in the first place. The upper middle and lower upper classes around the world are all the same. This is because we are not lacking in competitive ability, or dependent upon equally ignorant or uncompetitive peers for information and opinion. Without the militia men WILL NOT OWN THE COMMONS. From there, everything falls apart.
-
Without the Militia Men Will Not Own the Commons.
Apr 21, 2020, 7:40 AM The problem is getting the rest of the world into middle class manners, ethics, morals, and values. We can only do that if the self, the family, and the commons are equally valued and defended regardless of class. The minute you give up on your other classes you give up on the commons. The same is true for heterogeneity. Create conflict between groups and we give up on the commons, and devolve to self and family.
—“There are more books published in Spanish in any one year than there have been in the entire history of Arab publishing.”—
Feminine, present, experiential civilization. There are very few arab intellectuals. Those few, say some version of the same thing “we live in our emotions not in our reason, we can read but we are still illiterate, we have freedom but no discipline.” This is the problem with ritual-cultures. it’s extremely successful at solving the problem of social insecurity (mindfulness). It only solves part of the problem and amplifies the rest by making agency impossible. Same for fundamentalism in christianity: it makes wonderful citizens and families – perhaps the best in the world – and prepares people for commercial society – but at the cost of needing a parental martial empirical aristocracy to defend, rule, and govern them. One of the reasons the french lost to the english was the combination of their effeminacy and excessive faith – the same excessive effeminacy and faith that they demonstrate today. (although you have to read letters from the period prior to agincourt to see how faith-insane they were.) The hindus remain caste-and-family, on the effeminate side, and socially lazy and irresponsible – so they are wonderful people lacking the hostility of the muslims, but can’t end familial corruption endemic in the society, nor do they have the military like the west and china to enforce policy so that a non-corrupt bureaucracy can evolve. I don’t complain about the chinese and koreans other than their women are as spoiled and hyper-consumptive and civilization destroying as western women and their males are further gone than western men because they were further gone in the first place. The upper middle and lower upper classes around the world are all the same. This is because we are not lacking in competitive ability, or dependent upon equally ignorant or uncompetitive peers for information and opinion. Without the militia men WILL NOT OWN THE COMMONS. From there, everything falls apart.
-
Law Enforcement Be Under P-Law
Apr 22, 2020, 11:55 AM
—“How different would the function of law enforcement be under P-law than how it operates in today’s society?”—
Primary differences are: 1) adopt sheriff public service model rather than police (corporate revenue generation) model, 2) to increase the number of officers in each incident so that force isn’t required 3) coupled with the ability to call large numbers of ‘trained’ citizens (militia) to assist (similar to volunteer fire departments); This increases the chances that someone who knows the individual can talk him or her down. 4) the population would be trained by continuous pubic service announcements on how to react to police officers. 5) Restore more discretion by senior officers, and lower the number of people who are put into the system. In other words ‘make time for human beings’. The acceleration of human behavior into rat-utopia panic is due to alienation, and the consequences. Social pressure and getting attention on one’s ‘ir-reciprocities’ and ‘feeling the social pressure (guilt)’ does not accelerate conflict behavior as does a relationship between an ‘oppressor / opponent / authority” with an officer. Shame is more effective than we think. Which is something we used to know. 6) We would restore all rights of self defense and all OBLIGATIONS to defend the commons: physical, normative, informational, and institutional. Meaning that a lot more criminals would be shot for ‘starter crimes’ – my favorite being porch-thieves, and within a decade behavior would return to ‘normal’. What does this amount to? Restoring the number of people protecting private and common. ORIGINS Where does this come from? Study of dutch british and german police forces, and study of how french citizens are taught to react to police. Source of the problem is distributed us population vs concentrated european population, and associated coverage costs. In effect we are forcing officers into a position where they cannot use numbers to encircle (see italian method) remain calm, and de-escalate, and so must use force to obtain control and bring into the system. The ability to storm someone’s home rather than wait to take them in public is another that needs to be changed. In effect we are trying to be too efficient with expensive officers, and we are paying the cost in increased distrust of the police courts, and political institutions becasue of it. We don’t need wild west sheriffs. We need to encircle, show consideration, de escalate, and if escalation is necessary it’s because there is no other choice, not because of the power ratio between officers and subjects. I can write more but in general, Americans suppress more petty crimes than europeans which is important and why we have nicer suburbs – and we want to keep it that way, and we are better at investigation – esp FBI – than european countries, but they are better at civil policing than americans. We are a more militarized society However, what I’m recommending is that we are a more “MILITIA-ISED” at the local level so that we restore investment in the material, social, political, and informational commons.
-
Law Enforcement Be Under P-Law
Apr 22, 2020, 11:55 AM
—“How different would the function of law enforcement be under P-law than how it operates in today’s society?”—
Primary differences are: 1) adopt sheriff public service model rather than police (corporate revenue generation) model, 2) to increase the number of officers in each incident so that force isn’t required 3) coupled with the ability to call large numbers of ‘trained’ citizens (militia) to assist (similar to volunteer fire departments); This increases the chances that someone who knows the individual can talk him or her down. 4) the population would be trained by continuous pubic service announcements on how to react to police officers. 5) Restore more discretion by senior officers, and lower the number of people who are put into the system. In other words ‘make time for human beings’. The acceleration of human behavior into rat-utopia panic is due to alienation, and the consequences. Social pressure and getting attention on one’s ‘ir-reciprocities’ and ‘feeling the social pressure (guilt)’ does not accelerate conflict behavior as does a relationship between an ‘oppressor / opponent / authority” with an officer. Shame is more effective than we think. Which is something we used to know. 6) We would restore all rights of self defense and all OBLIGATIONS to defend the commons: physical, normative, informational, and institutional. Meaning that a lot more criminals would be shot for ‘starter crimes’ – my favorite being porch-thieves, and within a decade behavior would return to ‘normal’. What does this amount to? Restoring the number of people protecting private and common. ORIGINS Where does this come from? Study of dutch british and german police forces, and study of how french citizens are taught to react to police. Source of the problem is distributed us population vs concentrated european population, and associated coverage costs. In effect we are forcing officers into a position where they cannot use numbers to encircle (see italian method) remain calm, and de-escalate, and so must use force to obtain control and bring into the system. The ability to storm someone’s home rather than wait to take them in public is another that needs to be changed. In effect we are trying to be too efficient with expensive officers, and we are paying the cost in increased distrust of the police courts, and political institutions becasue of it. We don’t need wild west sheriffs. We need to encircle, show consideration, de escalate, and if escalation is necessary it’s because there is no other choice, not because of the power ratio between officers and subjects. I can write more but in general, Americans suppress more petty crimes than europeans which is important and why we have nicer suburbs – and we want to keep it that way, and we are better at investigation – esp FBI – than european countries, but they are better at civil policing than americans. We are a more militarized society However, what I’m recommending is that we are a more “MILITIA-ISED” at the local level so that we restore investment in the material, social, political, and informational commons.
-
Statism vs Anti Statism
Apr 22, 2020, 4:23 PM Her: “….” (I don’t want to bear and raise kids – I want to hyper-consume, socialize and virtue signal) Him” “….” (I don’t want to wage slave and pay taxes – I want to raid, r-pe and pillage) The only difference is one requires the state and one the absence of it. State, Government, Judiciary, Market, Marriage, Family are the compromise between the genders. These compromises are the equilibrium under which we all get the best we can get even if some or many of us could get better at the expense of others. There is a reason all civil wars begin with an excess of unmarried males. Incentives.
-
Statism vs Anti Statism
Apr 22, 2020, 4:23 PM Her: “….” (I don’t want to bear and raise kids – I want to hyper-consume, socialize and virtue signal) Him” “….” (I don’t want to wage slave and pay taxes – I want to raid, r-pe and pillage) The only difference is one requires the state and one the absence of it. State, Government, Judiciary, Market, Marriage, Family are the compromise between the genders. These compromises are the equilibrium under which we all get the best we can get even if some or many of us could get better at the expense of others. There is a reason all civil wars begin with an excess of unmarried males. Incentives.
-
Compassion Is an Individual Action, Not a Collective One
Apr 22, 2020, 5:38 PM by Matt MacBradaigh One can only be compassionate as an individual action, not a collective one. When one tries to extend collective compassion, what happens is recipient (a small segment of society) benefits irreciprocally at the expense of others. Examples: “Compassion” for repeat criminal offenders, “It’s not their fault; it’s the system. Blah blah blah” is at at the expense of those whom are the next repeat criminal offender’s victims. It’s total LACK of compassion for everyone else to satisfy ones feelz. It’s actually downright selfish. “Compassion” for the poor leading to voting for government to take other’s money instead of giving your own, and then engaging in GSRRM to shame anyone who balks at being stolen from.
-
Compassion Is an Individual Action, Not a Collective One
Apr 22, 2020, 5:38 PM by Matt MacBradaigh One can only be compassionate as an individual action, not a collective one. When one tries to extend collective compassion, what happens is recipient (a small segment of society) benefits irreciprocally at the expense of others. Examples: “Compassion” for repeat criminal offenders, “It’s not their fault; it’s the system. Blah blah blah” is at at the expense of those whom are the next repeat criminal offender’s victims. It’s total LACK of compassion for everyone else to satisfy ones feelz. It’s actually downright selfish. “Compassion” for the poor leading to voting for government to take other’s money instead of giving your own, and then engaging in GSRRM to shame anyone who balks at being stolen from.
-
I made a necessary inescapable argument: You can invent whatever imaginary causa
I made a necessary inescapable argument: You can invent whatever imaginary causality you want, but as I said, rights must be brought into existence and envorced. And in response to your nonsense statement. Law has greater force than religion. Religions are resistance movements.
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-22 00:26:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263627270566088704
Reply addressees: @PaulDesmoParker @TheRealFMCH @Maroeladalx10DB @laurenboebert @austere1717
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263626584260374529