Aristocracy Socializes Gains Into the Commons, and Oligarchy Privatizes Gains Out of The Commons. An Aristocracy increases the capital in the commons and an Oligarchy exploits it. That’s the difference. SIMPLE: ARISTOCRACY +COMMONS, OLIGARCHY -COMMONS
Theme: Commons
-
Aristocracy vs Oligarchy is Simple…
Aristocracy Socializes Gains Into the Commons, and Oligarchy Privatizes Gains Out of The Commons. An Aristocracy increases the capital in the commons and an Oligarchy exploits it. That’s the difference. SIMPLE: ARISTOCRACY +COMMONS, OLIGARCHY -COMMONS
-
SIMPLE: ARISTOCRACY +COMMONS, OLIGARCHY -COMMONS An Aristocracy increases the ca
SIMPLE: ARISTOCRACY +COMMONS, OLIGARCHY -COMMONS
An Aristocracy increases the capital in the commons and an Oligarchy exploits it. That’s the difference.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-02 04:05:00 UTC
-
Conservatism And The Central Objects Of Law, Policy, And Commons.
Conservatism is not an individualist but a Familial strategy. In other words, the strategy is building good, self-insuring families. So conservatism eugenically suppresses weak and bad family members from the gene pool, allowing those who demonstrate a willingness to transcend their familial (genetic) weaknesses through demonstrations of heroism. So if your family is too weak you provide you with wealth it’s a measure of your genes. And you are a representative of those genes. Through actions and choices, you may transcend your family limits. Through actions and choices one can descend from a family’s achievements. There are four functions that play for and against your statement. First, the lottery effect is real and necessary (you can’t win if you don’t play) but not all people can win the lottery. This creates incentives for many at very low cost. Second capitalism pays us for the number of people who are willing to contribute to the production of goods and services. It’s purely a numbers game. Making cooking-matches and making symphonies is inversely rewarding; lots of people use cooking-matches. Third – it is extremely difficult to hold wealth over more than three generations unless you are in fact genetically superior. And that is what we see. Fourth – those families that demonstrate superiority over many generations are in fact demonstrating that they are a natural aristocracy – by any measure: and there are very few of them. THEREFORE The central object of law is the individual, since the individual acts. The central object of policy is the family. The central object of commons is the competitiveness of the polity. Insurance of various forms is a luxury we can afford or not depending on the success of the central objects of law, policy, and polity. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine, (And my spiritual homes: London UK, Boston, and Seattle USA) 🙂
-
Conservatism And The Central Objects Of Law, Policy, And Commons.
Conservatism is not an individualist but a Familial strategy. In other words, the strategy is building good, self-insuring families. So conservatism eugenically suppresses weak and bad family members from the gene pool, allowing those who demonstrate a willingness to transcend their familial (genetic) weaknesses through demonstrations of heroism. So if your family is too weak you provide you with wealth it’s a measure of your genes. And you are a representative of those genes. Through actions and choices, you may transcend your family limits. Through actions and choices one can descend from a family’s achievements. There are four functions that play for and against your statement. First, the lottery effect is real and necessary (you can’t win if you don’t play) but not all people can win the lottery. This creates incentives for many at very low cost. Second capitalism pays us for the number of people who are willing to contribute to the production of goods and services. It’s purely a numbers game. Making cooking-matches and making symphonies is inversely rewarding; lots of people use cooking-matches. Third – it is extremely difficult to hold wealth over more than three generations unless you are in fact genetically superior. And that is what we see. Fourth – those families that demonstrate superiority over many generations are in fact demonstrating that they are a natural aristocracy – by any measure: and there are very few of them. THEREFORE The central object of law is the individual, since the individual acts. The central object of policy is the family. The central object of commons is the competitiveness of the polity. Insurance of various forms is a luxury we can afford or not depending on the success of the central objects of law, policy, and polity. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine, (And my spiritual homes: London UK, Boston, and Seattle USA) 🙂
-
The Uncomfortable Political Truth We Must Adapt To In This Century
Nationalism, Tribalism, Familialism are all the best POLITICAL criteria for decidability in matters of commons, just as individualism is the best criteria for decidability in matters of the individual. I don’t like “anti-anyone” other than perhaps I am pretty much against religions that are incompatible with natural law, and are justified by means incompatible with physical law. I prefer limiting immigration to the ‘highly’ skilled (I don’t include IT in that category – IT will be analogous to any other trade soon enough). And I am against the importation of calculators, managers, laborers, and underclasses, in all cases. Precisely because they may increase short-term profits at the expense of long-term genetic, institutional, and normative costs. But if we retain Nationalism, Tribalism, and Familialism in Political policy (positive production of commons) and Individualism in Legal policy (negative resolution of differences), then this forces groups to pay their own way genetically, institutionally, and normatively. And by doing so raise their family, tribe, and nation to transcendence. We do not make better people so much as we eliminate those people who are a detriment to the better people. And it is this reality that we must come to terms with in this century. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine</div>
-
The Uncomfortable Political Truth We Must Adapt To In This Century
Nationalism, Tribalism, Familialism are all the best POLITICAL criteria for decidability in matters of commons, just as individualism is the best criteria for decidability in matters of the individual. I don’t like “anti-anyone” other than perhaps I am pretty much against religions that are incompatible with natural law, and are justified by means incompatible with physical law. I prefer limiting immigration to the ‘highly’ skilled (I don’t include IT in that category – IT will be analogous to any other trade soon enough). And I am against the importation of calculators, managers, laborers, and underclasses, in all cases. Precisely because they may increase short-term profits at the expense of long-term genetic, institutional, and normative costs. But if we retain Nationalism, Tribalism, and Familialism in Political policy (positive production of commons) and Individualism in Legal policy (negative resolution of differences), then this forces groups to pay their own way genetically, institutionally, and normatively. And by doing so raise their family, tribe, and nation to transcendence. We do not make better people so much as we eliminate those people who are a detriment to the better people. And it is this reality that we must come to terms with in this century. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine</div>
-
that’s not true. Capitalism is necessary and commons are necessary and the quest
that’s not true. Capitalism is necessary and commons are necessary and the question is only the balance
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-26 07:20:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/780305995570548736
Reply addressees: @cyberslav @panzerbunny457
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/780131804938240000
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/780131804938240000
-
What Are Civil Societies?
Civil Society means that commons are produced by voluntary actions of citizens rather than by the direction by and payment from government. Civil societies require high trust. Only northern europeans developed high trust at scale. Ergo civil societies are rare, and the western governments since the war have destroyed most of it through government intervention in under a century.
-
What Are Civil Societies?
Civil Society means that commons are produced by voluntary actions of citizens rather than by the direction by and payment from government. Civil societies require high trust. Only northern europeans developed high trust at scale. Ergo civil societies are rare, and the western governments since the war have destroyed most of it through government intervention in under a century.