INEQUALITY IS A GOOD
Inequality is a good. In evolves man. Invention is a good. In increases our ability to consume. If we were all equal, we would have nothing to trade. And we would be poor. As are extant people who are in fact equal. To create an economy to sustain man we must create equality constantly. To create humans that evolve man, we must create equality constantly. Equality = stasis = extinction.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-29 02:54:00 UTC
SYSTEMS G-GENES, 0-PROPERTY, 1-INTUITION, 2-REASON, 3-COOPERATION(REPRODUCTIVE DIVISION OF PERCEPTION, COGNITION, KNOWLEDGE, LABOR)
(profound) (worth repeating)
[O]ur logical capacity extends to the limits defined by the flight of an arrow. For more complex multi-dimensional relations we resort to the cartesian representations. And if the problem is more complicated than that, then our reason, and ability to envision causal relations, is terribly frail.
And if I am correct (and it appears at present that I am), then “System 0″ is little more than a producer of reward and punishment endorphins in response to increases or decreases in an individual’s inventory of “property”. Property that is necessary for his life, cooperation and reproduction.
Emotions are reactions to changes in state. Changes in state are determined by changes in property. Humans act to acquire that which improves their condition. Humans resent and punish, at great personal expense, appropriations of that which they have acted to acquire.
Reason (Stanovich’s System “2”) rides on the elephant of intuition (Stanovich’s System “1”), whose objects of consideration ( Doolittle’s System “0”) are what we call ‘property’. Our brains are difference engines. And we calculate differences in property: that which we have acted to obtain.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev.
SYSTEMS G-GENES, 0-PROPERTY, 1-INTUITION, 2-REASON, 3-COOPERATION(REPRODUCTIVE DIVISION OF PERCEPTION, COGNITION, KNOWLEDGE, LABOR)
(profound) (worth repeating)
[O]ur logical capacity extends to the limits defined by the flight of an arrow. For more complex multi-dimensional relations we resort to the cartesian representations. And if the problem is more complicated than that, then our reason, and ability to envision causal relations, is terribly frail.
And if I am correct (and it appears at present that I am), then “System 0″ is little more than a producer of reward and punishment endorphins in response to increases or decreases in an individual’s inventory of “property”. Property that is necessary for his life, cooperation and reproduction.
Emotions are reactions to changes in state. Changes in state are determined by changes in property. Humans act to acquire that which improves their condition. Humans resent and punish, at great personal expense, appropriations of that which they have acted to acquire.
Reason (Stanovich’s System “2”) rides on the elephant of intuition (Stanovich’s System “1”), whose objects of consideration ( Doolittle’s System “0”) are what we call ‘property’. Our brains are difference engines. And we calculate differences in property: that which we have acted to obtain.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev.
SYSTEMS G-GENES, 0-PROPERTY, 1-INTUITION, 2-REASON, 3-COOPERATION(REPRODUCTIVE DIVISION OF PERCEPTION, COGNITION, KNOWLEDGE, LABOR)
(profound) (worth repeating)
Our logical capacity extends to the limits defined by the flight of an arrow. For more complex multi-dimensional relations we resort to the cartesian representations. And if the problem is more complicated than that, then our reason, and ability to envision causal relations, is terribly frail.
And if I am correct (and it appears at present that I am), then “System 0″ is little more than a producer of reward and punishment endorphins in response to increases or decreases in an individual’s inventory of “property”. Property that is necessary for his life, cooperation and reproduction.
Emotions are reactions to changes in state. Changes in state are determined by changes in property. Humans act to acquire that which improves their condition. Humans resent, and punish, at great personal expense, appropriations of that which they have acted to acquire.
Reason (Kahneman’s System “2”) rides on the elephant of intuition (Kahneman’s System “1”), whose objects of consideration (System “0”) are what we call ‘property’. Our brains are difference engines. And we calculate differences in property: that which we have acted to obtain.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-27 11:16:00 UTC
THE REBIRTH OF THE CIVIC SOCIETY
Can you imagine the rebirth of the Civic Society if we had universal standing in the defense of truth telling, in matters of the informational commons?
Can you imagine how many people would sue for harm to the commons?
Truth is enough.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-24 05:46:00 UTC
TRUST IS NOT A SENTIMENTAL CULTURAL ATTRIBUTE
(worth repeating)
—“Trust is not sentimental value. It is a measure of the complexity of economic and social relations that can be constructed given the transaction costs that impede them.”—
Put that in your repertoire and smoke it. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-23 06:08:00 UTC
NUTSHELL: SOCIAL ORDERS
As far as I know, the traditional family is the optimum association of kin for the purpose of reproduction and production.
As far as I know, only the Absolute nuclear family could evolve total suppression of parasitism.
As far as I know, nothing prevents the total suppression of parasitism (high trust) while at the same time advocating the traditional family.
Law must be constructed for individuals, but policy can easily be constructed for families.
But this means that the quality of one’s family influences one’s life.
So the underclass want to be free of their family constraints.
And to parasitically consume the better families as a reproductive strategy: to reduce the competition of good genes, by expanding the production of bad genes.
As far as I know the only substantive differences between groups are in the distribution of intellectual biases, intellectual capabilities and aggression.
As far as I know the reason groups defeat other groups is that they increase the rates of reproduction of either their underclasses and expand territorially, or they decrease the rates of reproduction of their underclasses and expand economically and intellectually.
So we can choose between equalitarian poverty (islam), poverty and castes (india/brazil), hierarchy and totalitarianism (china), or egalitarianism and aristocracy (old northern europe).
The question is only whether we suppress the rates of reproduction of the underclasses and expand the rates of reproduction of the upper classes.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-18 05:13:00 UTC
The common good is only so good as it does not drain my family, and helps my family. My family, my clan, my tribe are my life. You may FEEL that some other common good is better, but then, that is just a preference, not a fact.
I would rather improve the lot and reproduction rates of the more noble families than mine, than I would the reproduction rates and lot of those that are less so. That ismy preference.
We can achieve my preference without parasitism. But we cannot achieve the progressive dream of dysgenia without parasitism.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-16 03:55:00 UTC
[T]he Christian idea is to create high trust by extending kinship ‘love’ to non-kin, by ignoring our animal impulses evolved for status competition and accumulation, thereby reducing the friction of familism, clannishness and tribalism, and increasing the velocity of cooperation.
By attributing status to the extension of kinship love to non-kin, Christian groups eliminate the possibility of gaining status by ‘cheating’ in favor of the family or tribe. Although this means that many Mediterranean Catholics practice low trust chirstianity by retaining familial insurance and kin selection. While protestant Christians eliminate even familial insurance via the absolute nuclear family.
This behavior is necessary for the development of an advanced economy. And it separates the west and Japan from the rest.
[T]his high trust behavior is also the opposite of the Levantine religions which advocate dualist, polylogical ethics by exacerbating kin selection at the tribal level even while eliminating it at the familial level. So we can see lowest-trust Islam, next-lowest trust Judaism, low trust catholicism, and high trust Protestantism. And when we order them this way we see that this order reflects the number of territorial competitors.
It is also (probably) true that westerners are less genetically biased against outsiders (due to more circumpolar hunter-gatherer evolutionary pressures) and less aggressive (lower testosterone) and more able to take advantage of it (higher average verbal IQ).
But all that means is that westerners are more fertile genetic ground for extension of kinship love to non-kin.
The church outlawing cousin marriage in order to break up the great families was equally influential.
So it is one thing to acknowledge the central subtle principle of Christianity, and to grasp its dramatic economic and political benefits, and quite another to conflate the dogma, rules and justifications as other than primitive law.
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source: Curt Doolittle
[T]he Christian idea is to create high trust by extending kinship ‘love’ to non-kin, by ignoring our animal impulses evolved for status competition and accumulation, thereby reducing the friction of familism, clannishness and tribalism, and increasing the velocity of cooperation.
By attributing status to the extension of kinship love to non-kin, Christian groups eliminate the possibility of gaining status by ‘cheating’ in favor of the family or tribe. Although this means that many Mediterranean Catholics practice low trust chirstianity by retaining familial insurance and kin selection. While protestant Christians eliminate even familial insurance via the absolute nuclear family.
This behavior is necessary for the development of an advanced economy. And it separates the west and Japan from the rest.
[T]his high trust behavior is also the opposite of the Levantine religions which advocate dualist, polylogical ethics by exacerbating kin selection at the tribal level even while eliminating it at the familial level. So we can see lowest-trust Islam, next-lowest trust Judaism, low trust catholicism, and high trust Protestantism. And when we order them this way we see that this order reflects the number of territorial competitors.
It is also (probably) true that westerners are less genetically biased against outsiders (due to more circumpolar hunter-gatherer evolutionary pressures) and less aggressive (lower testosterone) and more able to take advantage of it (higher average verbal IQ).
But all that means is that westerners are more fertile genetic ground for extension of kinship love to non-kin.
The church outlawing cousin marriage in order to break up the great families was equally influential.
So it is one thing to acknowledge the central subtle principle of Christianity, and to grasp its dramatic economic and political benefits, and quite another to conflate the dogma, rules and justifications as other than primitive law.
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source: Curt Doolittle