ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM’S IMPROVEMENT OF SHAKESPEARE
“Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none. Punish the wicked, defeat aggressors, and kill the evil. Only free riders turn the other cheek. Nobility pays the cost of creating good.”
“Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none.”
— William Shakespeare (All’s Well That Ends Well)
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-29 14:11:00 UTC
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-us-humans-building-a-global-Utopia
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-us-humans-building-a-global-Utopia
FEMINISTS: BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR
The first problem for any society is to find positive incentives for men.
Feminism seeks to position men as oppressors – instead of our traditional roles as a compromise. But it is a compromise for both genders.
For most of us, Islamic paternal domination, and daily tribal warfare, or African enslavement of women is a more desirable way to live than the tedium of labor, office, tax, law and family.
In the family, women compromise and men compromise. But, If not, then men will no longer compromise either. They will first abandon society. Then family. Then pursue self interest.
5%,unhappy women just complain. 5% unhappy men without access to sex and marriage cause revolutions every time.
And or tribes are not equal in aggression. The relative docility of Asian males should not obscure the relative aggressiveness of steppe and desert males.
So we compromise or be subjugated. None of us gets our ideal.
Any soldier will in confidence confess that robbing, raping and pillaging is far preferable to sedentary life.
The Romans made a business of it. The Muslims are currently making entertainment out of it.
Men build the world for the benefit of and approval of women.
We can just as easily destroy it if that incentive ends.
Women are along for the ride.
Be careful what you wish for.
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-23 04:25:00 UTC
[T]he first problem for any society is to find positive incentives for men.
Feminism seeks to position men as oppressors – instead of our traditional roles as a compromise. But it is a compromise for both genders.
For most of us, Islamic paternal domination, and daily tribal warfare, or African enslavement of women is a more desirable way to live than the tedium of labor, office, tax, law and family.
In the family, women compromise and men compromise. But, If not, then men will no longer compromise either. They will first abandon society. Then family. Then pursue self interest.
5%,unhappy women just complain. 5% unhappy men without access to sex and marriage cause revolutions every time.
And or tribes are not equal in aggression. The relative docility of Asian males should not obscure the relative aggressiveness of steppe and desert males.
So we compromise or be subjugated. None of us gets our ideal.
Any soldier will in confidence confess that robbing, raping and pillaging is far preferable to sedentary life.
The Romans made a business of it. The Muslims are currently making entertainment out of it.
Men build the world for the benefit of and approval of women.
We can just as easily destroy it if that incentive ends.
Women are along for the ride.
Be careful what you wish for.
I agree to cooperate, even if it is to my detriment, as long as cooperation does not devolve into justification for parasitism.
The moment that we are no longer cooperating, but you are engaging in parasitism, and particularly when the state is engaging in parasitism, then I no longer agree to cooperate.
But what does that mean? “I no longer agree to cooperate?” It can only mean two things.
The first, is that I boycott opportunities for cooperation. The second is that I return to predation.
Boycott is the only choice available to the weak.
Predation is the choice available to the strong.
My name is legion. We are many. And we are strong.
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-21 03:08:00 UTC
WHAT IS MORALITY?
(from elsewhere)
Cooperation is extremely beneficial. As we evolved cooperation, we evolve instincts to prefer it. But Cooperation opens the door to parasitism, which negates the value of cooperation. So we evolved moral instincts that inform us to punish parasites and parasitism. In economics this parasitism is referred to more gently as ‘free riding’.
That which is moral is that which is productive non-parasitic, and provides incentives to cooperate. That which is immoral is that which is unproductive, parasitic, and reduces incentives for cooperation.
Most groups develop tolerances for, and reward for, mutual insurance. Insurance is not parasitic as long as it is not a form of dependency. Tolerance for paying this insurance normally decreases with kinship distance. Few cultures develop insurance regardless of kinship difference.
Westerners were successful in both outbreeding (eliminating cousin marriage), and in generating widespread trade. And western culture for ancient reasons, uniquely favors truth-telling. The (protestant) west developed high trust, breaking the kinship barrier to insurance.
So the (protestant) west was able to (in *fact*) produce the most moral society: the greatest restraint of parasitism, and therefore by consequence, the greatest economic output by systematically suppressing all free riding (parasitism).
Whereupon, as a result of political inclusion during the enlightenment, the marxists, socialists and feminists via the novelty of democracy, systematically worked to use their newfound influence in government to circumvent the suppression of parasitism, and they institutionalized parasitism via the state – despite it’s eradication from institutionalization in norms.
As limits to parasitism, and the fragility of parasitism , and the accumulated malincentives of parasitism became visible, the western state evolved however, into a vast insurance company. And the general principle it operates by is Rawlsian: “produce the greatest parasitism that does not kill the incentives of the host”.
The question is, whether this general rule produces a society that is sustainable or not. Progressives advance it because they have faith in technology, conservatives resist it because they have little faith in the nature of man.
Conservatives are correct in their understanding of man. Progressives correct in the (temporary) benefit of tolerating parasitism.
But, the American experience as misinformed the world: the sale of cheap land is our equivalent of the ‘curse of oil’.
The oil producers do not evolve advanced economies because of the malincenives of oil. Westerners destroy their high trust society because of the malincentives of selling cheap land to immigrating members of low trust societies without forcibly indoctrinating them into high trust western cultural norms.
We are only as moral as we can get away with avoiding. Morality evolved AFTER self interest. And most of us seek parasitism wherever possible, whenever we will not be punished for it.
Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-21 02:21:00 UTC
ELI ON CHIVALRY
–“Chivalry is an offer that men extend to women; make certain concessions, receive certain rights and considerations in return.
But there is no point in being a gentleman if there are no ladies. If women will not refrain from scolding, shaming and gossip, to get their way, there’s no benefit to men in refraining from violence.”—
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-14 14:30:00 UTC
(Serious, even if it seems antagonistic) So, the principle result of western manorialism was to make best use of land for the community, and by consequence, prevent the reproduction of those who were unproductive. This was an enormously successful program when combined with prohibition on inbreeding – it converted most of Europe into the descendants of the middle class. And while it is an uncomfortable truth that the underclasses are both unproductive and expensive, why is it that we should redistribute to the unproductive, rather than use land to constrain the reproduction of the unproductive, as we have done, and others have done, for thousands of years? We must be equal under the law for a variety of reasons, none of which are just, all of which are necessary for the production of competitive economic velocity. But we are certainly not equal in value to one another. Vast numbers are dead weight on the rest. Even for the productive, I do not understand why I have any particular right to live in central manhattan when those who live there make better value of close proximity to others of exceptional ability than I would make of it. Nor do I understand why progressive taxation of property transactions and income which is onerous already, is not a sufficient means of extraction of value that can be contributed to the commons. I have been struggling to understand this movement for a long time and I am still unfortunately mystified by the assumption that the idea is a ‘good’ one. And I am still hoping that someone can inform me. (Although, truthfully I expect the usual rants rather than to be informed.) Thanks for anyone who helps.
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-12 14:46:00 UTC
THE ULTIMATE INSURER OF LAST RESORT
In the the face of economic catastrophe, Ukrainains retreat to the villages, with family , where they live largely off the land, and in near self sufficiency.
The state is not the last resort. The land is.
Source date (UTC): 2015-03-08 15:44:00 UTC