Theme: Coercion

  • UNDERSTANDING THE 20TH CENTURY POLITICAL EXPERIMENTS (Law, Socialism, Maxism, Le

    UNDERSTANDING THE 20TH CENTURY POLITICAL EXPERIMENTS (Law, Socialism, Maxism, Leninism, Fascism)

    All,
    When we discuss the evolution of experiments with organizing humans in modernity, we would be better off discussing the specific approaches used and the influences that caused them to make the PRACTICAL decisions each country and group made.

    The English invention of the empirical rule of law modern state, and it’s commercial rather than religious, social, or political organization, and the equality of opportunity, given the higher trust of the english people and the maturity of their institutions, as a continuation of the domeestic practice of the englis as they expanded in the age of sail. And the american order is simply a textual formalization of the english order.
    (‘A Legal Order’)

    The French Socialist philosophical invention of the origional meaning of socialism, meaning the organization of the administrative state for the benefit of the people rather than the aristocracy nobility and burghers, and the mediation of inequality of outcome, given the lower trust of the french people, their greater heterogeneity, with france being the most politically backward state in europe – and as a european reformationary movement.
    (‘A Bureaucratic Order’)

    The Marxist pseudoscientific distortion of socialism to the centralized state control of production and the equality of outcome, given the zero trust of the jews and underclasses, the total absence of experience with governance or rule, in fact the long history of jewis incompetence at rule, and even their inability to subsist non-parasitically with host populations, and especially total lack of exeperience with the behavior of human beings at scale – as an international revolutionary movement.
    (a ‘Social Order’)

    The Leninist ideological distortion of french -> marxist socialism given the zero trust of the jews and lower classes, the total inexperence of with governance and rule, the primitive agrarian state of development, and the acknowledgement of the demonstrated behavior of people at scale.
    (a ‘Military Order’)

    The Fascist ideological counter-revolution against the English Legal, French ‘Liberal’, and Jewish Marxist, and Russian Leninist alternatives. Given the high trust and sense of duty and piety of the german people given that they were surrounded, that france had destroyed the holy roman empire,
    (a ‘Pseudo-Monarchical Order’)

    Tip: The English were right on the seas where they were dominant and secure. The Fascists were right on the continent where they were surrounded and insecure. Everyone else was wrong. Because socialism, marxism, leninism, maoism, the jews, and the laggarts we call the muslim fundamentalists were all wrong.

    Why? every polity doubles down on it’s group strategy like a drug addict until they crash hard enough that they need to reform.

    Europeans are misunderstood: we crashed and reformed often and quickly and in doing so, despite being the youngest race, the young civilization, with small numbers, at the edge of the bronze age revolution, by the accident of the only possible means of organizing clans of steppe herders competing with horse, bronze, and wheel: rule of law and democratic choice.

    In other words, the government of cattle raiders, of marines(rome), of vikings, of pirates, and of diasporic naval conquerors, whether land or sea, is the origion of sovereignty, the origin participatory government, the origin of rule of law, the origin of contractual legislation, and subsequently the origion of reason, philosophy, natural philosophy, empiricism, and science, and the fact that in just three short periods in the bronze, iron, and steel ages, europeans almost excluslively, and faster than all other civilizations combined, dragged mankind out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, and the victimization by a nature hostile to our existence.

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation

    Reply addressees: @MadsMikkel28560 @Viorp2 @Thedukeistheman @AntonyArakkal1 @Sargon_of_Akkad


    Source date (UTC): 2023-08-29 16:32:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1696561361147383810

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1696551574888222988

  • There is a reason you don’t have responsibiilty for others at scale. Because if

    There is a reason you don’t have responsibiilty for others at scale. Because if you did, you’d understand that what you’re suggesting could never happen outside of a condition of desperation in war.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-08-29 08:29:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1696439877405954482

    Reply addressees: @Weltenfluss @SawyerMerritt

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1696426899952538067

  • Q: Curt: “What are the criteria necessary for Fiat Currency?”– Fiat, in latin m

    –Q: Curt: “What are the criteria necessary for Fiat Currency?”–

    Fiat, in latin meaning “It shall be” requires five properties:
    1) Unbacked by a commodity,
    2) Value maintained only by supply and demand
    3) Issued by an arbitrary actor (government)
    4) Insured by that actor (government),
    5) and Mandated acceptance by the issuer (government) for use in the settlement of exchanges.

    This means only those organizations capable of coercing its use (“thou shalt”) can issue a ‘fiat’ currency(commodity money substitute). And in practical terms, only governments are capable of producing and mandating fiat currency.

    So privately issued digital is not a fiat currency. It’s a divisible, share in the network, for use as a token money, meaning as a money-substitute.

    Fedcoins will likely be fiat money substitutes. If not at first then over time.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-08-28 14:09:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1696163125030993920

  • RU has no men. No food. No ammo. No reinforcements. UA is baiting RU into shifti

    RU has no men. No food. No ammo. No reinforcements. UA is baiting RU into shifting men out of defensive lines, and into the UA meatgrinder.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-08-26 18:31:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1695504282349425030

    Reply addressees: @MegatrronMan @JoseViavitae @DVOyst @artificer_the @front_ukrainian

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1695499553204511225

  • RT @ContraFabianist: If violence serves as behavioural feedback on the transgres

    RT @ContraFabianist: If violence serves as behavioural feedback on the transgression of limits, and violence is always on the table among m…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-08-25 00:51:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1694875119225643438

  • WHAT IS THE LEFT DOING, HOW, AND WHY? (undermining distributed responsibility, i

    WHAT IS THE LEFT DOING, HOW, AND WHY?
    (undermining distributed responsibility, in order to generate demand for centralized authority)

    The left is making the individual (somewhat like libertarians are) the object of government, policy, legislation and law, instead of the family – for the simple reason that (a) under agrarianism the dissolution of the primacy of the family was unimaginable because the family was the insurer of last resort of the individual (b) the state has tried to replace the family as the insurer of last resort of the individual (c) the state has set the indiviual as the primary subject of policy (d) because our constitution and our law did not (correctly) establish the intergenerational family as the first necessary system of production upon which social, econmic, political, and strategy ‘production’ depends.

    So it’s quite easy to fix the policy that has given the left the tools to undermine the family, the purpose of all social, political, and strategic order the intergenerational family, and the economy the means by which to supply the satisfaction of the demands of that hierarchy of orders.

    We evolve and we learn. We have learned that the anglo enlightenment was correct, and the rench, german, jewish, and every other enlightenment has been not only incorrect, but a revolt against the anglo empirical enlightenment. We have learned that while it was beneficial to organize the inclusion of the middle class, that we were wrong to dilute the nobility and replace it with credentialed clerisy. We have learned that inclusion of the working class required a separate house not dilution of the middle class house. We have learnd that the inclusion of women was far worse than the inclusion of the working class without a separate house – becasue the houses constitute juries of demonstrated capacity for responsibility for others. And women avoid responsibility for others (at their cost) at all times, and instead, seek to produce irresponsibility for themsevles and others at all times.

    As such these questions are all relatively simple to fix – but only after having produced the evidence of the failure of each of teh additional classes, and then restoring the government as a market between the classes for the satisfaction of their wants – adminstered by people who have demonstraed capacity in the satisfaction of human wants, and not one that consists of a managerial government and a clerisy of credentialists with no demonstrated competency for the solution of real world problems with real world people, given the available incentives to do so without coercion – which is the only tool the govt has.

    You (martin) are obsessed with the woke movement, the irresponsible feminism that results, and see everything through that lens. When our job is to produce a solution for not only that movement but all future such deceptions and frauds, by discovering and curing causality not chasing ‘effects’ like they are feral cats.
    😉

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @TheAutistocrat @jeffreyatucker


    Source date (UTC): 2023-08-24 15:48:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1694738422630359040

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1694721713790210501

  • RT @feeonline: “Government is about coercion. Limiting government is the single

    RT @feeonline: “Government is about coercion.

    Limiting government is the single most important instrument for guaranteeing liberty.”

    – W…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-08-24 14:32:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1694719436769710096

  • THE WESTERN WAR MODEL IS WRONG… (Sorta) HERE IS WHY: –“THEORY: U.S. and NATO

    THE WESTERN WAR MODEL IS WRONG… (Sorta)
    HERE IS WHY:
    –“THEORY: U.S. and NATO military strategists are taught that the decisive part of a war resides in the major combat operations phase. BUT: America’s post-9/11 wars and the Ukraine War have proven that’s not so. INSTEAD: Rather, using force during major combat operations, and after, together form the necessary and sufficient conditions to achieve the strategic political objectives of a war.”–

    I’m not sure why we have to keep learning this every century, but the Western position is a remnant of European war between monarchies and states over economic control of resources.

    In the european theatre of war, and part of our civilization’s concept of war (See The Culture of War by Von Creveld, and The History of Warfare by Keegan). Why? You must defeat an enemy on his civilization’s terms, and in doing so achieve political and strategic victory.

    There is a tendency of ‘Gentlemanly’ European historical warfare, because of our domestication of warfare (yes really), certainly from the peace of Westphalia thru to the Geneva convention, in various agreements on the rules of war, culminating in the declaration of human rights. (Something that we cannot hold other civs to – it’s a degree of morality alien to them.) We cannot civilize uncivilized people. They must civilize themselves out of incremental self interest.

    Instead, either (a) war is an extension of politics, or (b) politics is a proxy for war, or (c) both. In other words. you must defeat both. And you must defeat the will to fight on the terms by which those who fight will modify their behavior.

    So you cannot win the war with battles on your terms, and instad you must defeat the enemy on the terms by which the political order (who decides), in their civilization (the men who fight), will change from what they are doing to what you wish it to be doing.

    This is easier with governments, but it is impossible with religions and ideologies. In other words, you must defeat (or kill) the carrier (host) of the idea that is causing the aggression. So it is better to fight a government than a religion or ideology, because the latter requires not just attacking the. military, or the leadership, but the population as a whole.

    This is the law of war. Clausewitz, Machiavelli, and Sun Tzu all failed to see the entire picture. But Machiavelli was closer to the most important insight: morality does not exist in war. It is a purely empirical pursuit, with the utility of the post-conflict relations the only constraint on the degree of violence that must be inflicted to end the conflict.

    Why am I stating this right after a post on Nietzsche? Same reason: Historical theorists lacked a global understanding of war in a period of marginal indifference in warfighting.

    In other words, the culture must be defeated on its terms, not yours.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2023-08-23 02:11:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1694170524102905856

  • Attempt at Falsification: If the middleman is the insurer, where defi has no ins

    Attempt at Falsification: If the middleman is the insurer, where defi has no insurer. This is the primary problem with trying to eradicate the state: the function of the state is the insurer of last resort, which is why it preserves the capacity of force as the last resort, and a monopoly over it: restitution.

    The ambition to eliminate the rent-seekers (banks) is not the same as the ambition to eliminate the insurer (state). As such, I’ve held the same conviction that all we are doing with crypto is research and development for the state (treasury) and killing off the parasitic properties of the financial sector, and as a consequence their influence in the state.

    Justificationary arguments are always false. (which is what the author is claiming, as do so many advocates. But testimony (science) requires enumerating and falsifying all competing theories. And the science suggests very clearly that we are just empowering the state. And that the state need only pursue institutional holders and users of the platforms to end the viability of the platforms. Even today the price is maintained by institutional holdings.

    Reply addressees: @BackTheBunny


    Source date (UTC): 2023-08-22 16:51:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1694029487707447308

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1669244042650210304

  • Why not simplify by removing you from the polity rather than them, and have a be

    Why not simplify by removing you from the polity rather than them, and have a better world to live in. There are plenty of primitive countries you could move to that don’t demand personal responsibility and accountability from you.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-08-21 17:57:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1693683706907570574

    Reply addressees: @stevethesmiths @BladeoftheS

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1693680428895392099