(ANSWER TO A “BAIT POST” – BTW: I BLOCKED THE INDIVIDUAL WHO REQUESTED IT.) SOME RADICAL LEFTIST ASKED ME HOW PROPERTARIANISM WOULD JUDGE HITLER’S GERMANY’S RELOCATION POLICY It was a dishonest attempt to bait hate speech. I don’t do hate speech. Ever. I do Science and Natural Law. Here is the Answer: (a) That high trust is nearly exclusive to the germanic and Japanese peoples, and is their civilization’s competitive advantage. (b) That outside of scientific researchers (scientists) non kin shouldn’t cohabitate in the fist place, because it reduces trust, and creates those exact conditions of conflict. (The upper intellectual classes are more autistic and less dependent upon collective for information, and the lower classes the opposite). (c) That peoples that specialize in rent seeking and profiting from moral hazard in particular shouldn’t be hosted (any more than those dependent upon begging and thievery) because it leads to prosecution, persecution, and at times, extermination – as well as destroying trust and raising costs of policing the commons. (d) That peoples who practice separatism of any kind shouldn’t be tolerated by host societies for those same reasons. (e) That this process of separation, if pursued, should be legislated with a multi-year timeline, later prosecuted for non-compliance, and then subject to Hoppe’s “Forcible Removal”. (f) That the original relocation model, taken from the Soviet Relocations, had been successful there, and truthfully, throughout all human history. (g) That the combination of relocation (forcible removal) and a nearly impossible war was unmanageable. And that they could not fund both. Had they not been pressured by Russia into war, they would have succeeded.
Theme: Coercion
-
How Propertarianism Would Judge Hitler’s Germany’s Relocation Policy
(ANSWER TO A “BAIT POST” – BTW: I BLOCKED THE INDIVIDUAL WHO REQUESTED IT.) SOME RADICAL LEFTIST ASKED ME HOW PROPERTARIANISM WOULD JUDGE HITLER’S GERMANY’S RELOCATION POLICY It was a dishonest attempt to bait hate speech. I don’t do hate speech. Ever. I do Science and Natural Law. Here is the Answer: (a) That high trust is nearly exclusive to the germanic and Japanese peoples, and is their civilization’s competitive advantage. (b) That outside of scientific researchers (scientists) non kin shouldn’t cohabitate in the fist place, because it reduces trust, and creates those exact conditions of conflict. (The upper intellectual classes are more autistic and less dependent upon collective for information, and the lower classes the opposite). (c) That peoples that specialize in rent seeking and profiting from moral hazard in particular shouldn’t be hosted (any more than those dependent upon begging and thievery) because it leads to prosecution, persecution, and at times, extermination – as well as destroying trust and raising costs of policing the commons. (d) That peoples who practice separatism of any kind shouldn’t be tolerated by host societies for those same reasons. (e) That this process of separation, if pursued, should be legislated with a multi-year timeline, later prosecuted for non-compliance, and then subject to Hoppe’s “Forcible Removal”. (f) That the original relocation model, taken from the Soviet Relocations, had been successful there, and truthfully, throughout all human history. (g) That the combination of relocation (forcible removal) and a nearly impossible war was unmanageable. And that they could not fund both. Had they not been pressured by Russia into war, they would have succeeded.
-
He who can destroy a thing, owns a thing- all else is permission
Why do you deserve to share this world with us? He who can destroy a thing, owns a thing- all else is permission. The first question of politics is why I and mine (if we can) do not kill you and yours and take your stuff. The only answer is that it is more beneficial to cooperate. Until it is no longer more beneficial to cooperate.
-
He who can destroy a thing, owns a thing- all else is permission
Why do you deserve to share this world with us? He who can destroy a thing, owns a thing- all else is permission. The first question of politics is why I and mine (if we can) do not kill you and yours and take your stuff. The only answer is that it is more beneficial to cooperate. Until it is no longer more beneficial to cooperate.
-
The Necessity of Conflict in Monotheism (monopoly)
Eli Harman June 20, 2016 · (repost) I take a dim view of monotheism because it necessitates conflict which isn’t actually necessary. Some conflict will always occur, because there are genuine conflicts of interest. But mere differences, whether in interests, culture, language, race, rituals, traditions, customs, doctrine, dogma, values, preferences, opinions, etc… need not result in conflict. People can coexist and cooperate through exchange, although sometimes necessarily from a distance. However, in monotheism, there is one god, one truth, one law, and they are universal. They are for everyone. If anyone disagrees, they are wrong, and not just wrong but evil, morally tainted. A more reasonable approach would be to accept that the truth is “out there.” We can test ourselves and our beliefs against it. But none of us has access to the whole. And any of us may be mistaken. Moreover, there is always more than one way to skin a cat, different bundles of trade offs or strategies that people may employ to achieve their values, or live in accordance with their preferences. These may be incompatible. But that doesn’t mean they *must* necessarily clash. The monotheistic mentality is exemplified by the Jews. The Talmud is 6200 pages of Byzantine nonsense written by hundreds of different rabbis. But it’s all revealed truth. It derives straight from the one true god, who is infallible, and therefore it’s not supposed to contain a single contradiction. Of course, it does. It must. So that’s why the Jews have evolved pilpul, casuistry, (basically, postmodern deconstruction) in order to square the circle, to reconcile the irreconcilable. They’re such good lawyers because they’ve been lawyering for thousands of years; so long in fact, that they’ve forgotten there is a truth “out there” to compare themselves to (if they ever knew to begin with.) That’s what religious jews do all day, every day, they dispute. Of course, sophistry is infinite in its variety, but because of monotheism, there must be one “correct” bullshit interpretation. They have to determine whose sophistry prevails. Their status heirarchies are based on cleverness in disputation, which is aimed, not at discovering truth, but at causing rivals and adversaries to relent from their wicked and unholy errors, and to accept the one true sophistry as their own. Because status confers reproductive advantages they are now literally bred for totalitarian bullshitting and moralizing. And these tendencies are notably evident, also, in secular jews who have abandoned the religious tradition entirely. Christianity is not as bad, but its cuckery was assured by its universalism. Is anyone surprised that the Catholic Church has become anti-western when the bulk of its flock, its constituency, is in the third world? The only thing surprising about it to me is that it’s taken this long. Nor is it any surprise that the Church spawned protestant spinoffs. Of course people are going to differ in opinion, interpretation, or emphasis. And the bigger your tent gets (in this case, by conquest) the more of those differences there will be to serve as internal fault lines. Eventually, they will become irreconcilable. But since only one can be correct, conflict must result. The only options are to suppress the heretics, to succumb to heresy, or split. There was a great deal of heretic suppressing at first but when the heretics became too numerous and too powerful to be easily suppressed, the splits were accepted (if not exactly endorsed.) But now we’re almost back to polytheism. Because in effect, the various, mutually tolerant, christian sects are worshipping subtly or even radically different gods, though they call them by the same name. Islam is just a parasitic, dysgenic mess that’s only good for belching forth conquering hordes of desperate, expendable, young men, to take over better cultures and begin consuming them in turn. It’s like a metastasizing religious cancer. It is more riven by internal division and conflict than any of them, due to the practice of inbreeding, which results in clanishness and tribalism. But you can see the distinct imprint of their monotheism in the ceaseless sectarian violence they take with them wherever they go. The “dar-al Islam” is not marked by peace even in submission, for everyone must submit in exactly the same way. But naturally, they differ as to what, precisely, that means.
-
The Necessity of Conflict in Monotheism (monopoly)
Eli Harman June 20, 2016 · (repost) I take a dim view of monotheism because it necessitates conflict which isn’t actually necessary. Some conflict will always occur, because there are genuine conflicts of interest. But mere differences, whether in interests, culture, language, race, rituals, traditions, customs, doctrine, dogma, values, preferences, opinions, etc… need not result in conflict. People can coexist and cooperate through exchange, although sometimes necessarily from a distance. However, in monotheism, there is one god, one truth, one law, and they are universal. They are for everyone. If anyone disagrees, they are wrong, and not just wrong but evil, morally tainted. A more reasonable approach would be to accept that the truth is “out there.” We can test ourselves and our beliefs against it. But none of us has access to the whole. And any of us may be mistaken. Moreover, there is always more than one way to skin a cat, different bundles of trade offs or strategies that people may employ to achieve their values, or live in accordance with their preferences. These may be incompatible. But that doesn’t mean they *must* necessarily clash. The monotheistic mentality is exemplified by the Jews. The Talmud is 6200 pages of Byzantine nonsense written by hundreds of different rabbis. But it’s all revealed truth. It derives straight from the one true god, who is infallible, and therefore it’s not supposed to contain a single contradiction. Of course, it does. It must. So that’s why the Jews have evolved pilpul, casuistry, (basically, postmodern deconstruction) in order to square the circle, to reconcile the irreconcilable. They’re such good lawyers because they’ve been lawyering for thousands of years; so long in fact, that they’ve forgotten there is a truth “out there” to compare themselves to (if they ever knew to begin with.) That’s what religious jews do all day, every day, they dispute. Of course, sophistry is infinite in its variety, but because of monotheism, there must be one “correct” bullshit interpretation. They have to determine whose sophistry prevails. Their status heirarchies are based on cleverness in disputation, which is aimed, not at discovering truth, but at causing rivals and adversaries to relent from their wicked and unholy errors, and to accept the one true sophistry as their own. Because status confers reproductive advantages they are now literally bred for totalitarian bullshitting and moralizing. And these tendencies are notably evident, also, in secular jews who have abandoned the religious tradition entirely. Christianity is not as bad, but its cuckery was assured by its universalism. Is anyone surprised that the Catholic Church has become anti-western when the bulk of its flock, its constituency, is in the third world? The only thing surprising about it to me is that it’s taken this long. Nor is it any surprise that the Church spawned protestant spinoffs. Of course people are going to differ in opinion, interpretation, or emphasis. And the bigger your tent gets (in this case, by conquest) the more of those differences there will be to serve as internal fault lines. Eventually, they will become irreconcilable. But since only one can be correct, conflict must result. The only options are to suppress the heretics, to succumb to heresy, or split. There was a great deal of heretic suppressing at first but when the heretics became too numerous and too powerful to be easily suppressed, the splits were accepted (if not exactly endorsed.) But now we’re almost back to polytheism. Because in effect, the various, mutually tolerant, christian sects are worshipping subtly or even radically different gods, though they call them by the same name. Islam is just a parasitic, dysgenic mess that’s only good for belching forth conquering hordes of desperate, expendable, young men, to take over better cultures and begin consuming them in turn. It’s like a metastasizing religious cancer. It is more riven by internal division and conflict than any of them, due to the practice of inbreeding, which results in clanishness and tribalism. But you can see the distinct imprint of their monotheism in the ceaseless sectarian violence they take with them wherever they go. The “dar-al Islam” is not marked by peace even in submission, for everyone must submit in exactly the same way. But naturally, they differ as to what, precisely, that means.
-
THE NECESSITY OF CONFLICT IN MONOTHEISM (MONOPOLY) Eli Harman June 20, 2016 · (r
THE NECESSITY OF CONFLICT IN MONOTHEISM (MONOPOLY)
Eli Harman
June 20, 2016 · (repost)
I take a dim view of monotheism because it necessitates conflict which isn’t actually necessary.
Some conflict will always occur, because there are genuine conflicts of interest. But mere differences, whether in interests, culture, language, race, rituals, traditions, customs, doctrine, dogma, values, preferences, opinions, etc… need not result in conflict.
People can coexist and cooperate through exchange, although sometimes necessarily from a distance.
However, in monotheism, there is one god, one truth, one law, and they are universal. They are for everyone. If anyone disagrees, they are wrong, and not just wrong but evil, morally tainted.
A more reasonable approach would be to accept that the truth is “out there.” We can test ourselves and our beliefs against it. But none of us has access to the whole. And any of us may be mistaken. Moreover, there is always more than one way to skin a cat, different bundles of trade offs or strategies that people may employ to achieve their values, or live in accordance with their preferences.
These may be incompatible. But that doesn’t mean they *must* necessarily clash.
The monotheistic mentality is exemplified by the Jews. The Talmud is 6200 pages of Byzantine nonsense written by hundreds of different rabbis. But it’s all revealed truth. It derives straight from the one true god, who is infallible, and therefore it’s not supposed to contain a single contradiction. Of course, it does. It must. So that’s why the Jews have evolved pilpul, casuistry, (basically, postmodern deconstruction) in order to square the circle, to reconcile the irreconcilable.
They’re such good lawyers because they’ve been lawyering for thousands of years; so long in fact, that they’ve forgotten there is a truth “out there” to compare themselves to (if they ever knew to begin with.)
That’s what religious jews do all day, every day, they dispute. Of course, sophistry is infinite in its variety, but because of monotheism, there must be one “correct” bullshit interpretation. They have to determine whose sophistry prevails. Their status heirarchies are based on cleverness in disputation, which is aimed, not at discovering truth, but at causing rivals and adversaries to relent from their wicked and unholy errors, and to accept the one true sophistry as their own.
Because status confers reproductive advantages they are now literally bred for totalitarian bullshitting and moralizing. And these tendencies are notably evident, also, in secular jews who have abandoned the religious tradition entirely.
Christianity is not as bad, but its cuckery was assured by its universalism. Is anyone surprised that the Catholic Church has become anti-western when the bulk of its flock, its constituency, is in the third world? The only thing surprising about it to me is that it’s taken this long.
Nor is it any surprise that the Church spawned protestant spinoffs. Of course people are going to differ in opinion, interpretation, or emphasis. And the bigger your tent gets (in this case, by conquest) the more of those differences there will be to serve as internal fault lines. Eventually, they will become irreconcilable. But since only one can be correct, conflict must result. The only options are to suppress the heretics, to succumb to heresy, or split. There was a great deal of heretic suppressing at first but when the heretics became too numerous and too powerful to be easily suppressed, the splits were accepted (if not exactly endorsed.) But now we’re almost back to polytheism. Because in effect, the various, mutually tolerant, christian sects are worshipping subtly or even radically different gods, though they call them by the same name.
Islam is just a parasitic, dysgenic mess that’s only good for belching forth conquering hordes of desperate, expendable, young men, to take over better cultures and begin consuming them in turn. It’s like a metastasizing religious cancer. It is more riven by internal division and conflict than any of them, due to the practice of inbreeding, which results in clanishness and tribalism. But you can see the distinct imprint of their monotheism in the ceaseless sectarian violence they take with them wherever they go.
The “dar-al Islam” is not marked by peace even in submission, for everyone must submit in exactly the same way. But naturally, they differ as to what, precisely, that means.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-20 12:33:00 UTC
-
*Empire of Guns* by Tyler Cowen June 19, 2018 at 7:22 am in Books Economics Hist
*Empire of Guns*
by Tyler Cowen June 19, 2018 at 7:22 am in Books Economics History Law Political Science
The author is Priya Satia, and the subtitle is The Violent Making of the Industrial Revolution.
In fact, there were so many transitions between peace and war that it is difficult to establish what “normal” economic conditions were. Eighteenth-century Europeans accepted war as “inevitable, an ordinary fact of human existence.” It was an utterly unexceptional state of affairs. For Britons in particular, war was something that happened abroad and that kept truly damaging disruption — invasion or rebellion — at bay. Wars that were disruptive elsewhere were understood as preservationist in Britain…Adam Smith’s complaints about the costs of war, about the “ruinous expedient” of perpetual funding and high public debt in peacetime, staked out a contrarian position; The Wealth of Nations (1776) was a work of persuasion. His and other voices in favor of pacific development grew louder from the margins. By denormalizing war, liberal political economy raised the stakes of the century’s long final wars from 1793 to 1815, which could be stomached only as an exceptional, apocalyptic stage on the way to permanent peace.
In their wake, nineteenth-century Britain packaged their empire as a primarily civilian enterprise focused on liberty, forgetting the earlier collective investment in and profit from the wars that had produced it..
————
Um.
1) Lets just recall that the Gunpowder Empires of Islam: the Ottoman, Safavid and Mughal empires, predate British Expansionism. Britain just used Sail not Horses, and gave us science, accounting, rule of law, and the industrial revolution rather than Islamic illiteracy and despotism.
2) There cultural, institutional, and religious reasons that India was conquered by every passing band of malcontents with little more effort than jumping up and down like the opening scenes of 2001 a Space Odyssey.
3) That the Indian Academy blames everything on the English without consideration that there is an equally high chance India would be second between Africa and Arabia, has failed to keep pace with China, and appears to be regressing politically.
4) That the Indian Academy has nearly as big a problem with historical pseudoscience as Russians do with Conspiracy, the Chinese do with edibles, and the Africans do with Magic.
5) Mishra is as much of an anti-western Propagandist as were Derrida, Freud, Boaz, and Marx.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-19 12:13:00 UTC
-
“DHS does not have a blanket policy of separating families at the border. Howeve
“DHS does not have a blanket policy of separating families at the border. However, DHS does have a responsibility to protect all minors in our custody. This means DHS will separate adults and minors under certain circumstances.
These circumstances include:
1) when DHS is unable to determine the familial relationship,
2) when DHS determines that a child may be at risk with the parent or legal guardian, or
3) when the parent or legal guardian is referred for criminal prosecution.”
(Via Adam Voight)
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-19 09:46:00 UTC
-
“A Marine buddy of mine said “there’s nothing wrong with this country that 30 mi
—“A Marine buddy of mine said “there’s nothing wrong with this country that 30 million body bags wouldn’t cure.” That’s 10% of the population, roughly. The figure is probably pretty damn close: relocation – above or below topsoil.”—-Daniel Roland Anderson
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-19 05:00:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1008937668514902016