I agree to cooperate with you as long as it is not harmful to do so. I dont even require that it is profitable. It just cannot subject me to effort, expenditure or loss.
But parasitism is not something I agree to.
And progressivism is parasitism.
Source date (UTC): 2014-06-09 07:51:00 UTC
Rothbardian ethics are all well and good if you want to be a parasite within a high trust low transaction cost society – and harm it in exchange. Or you want to construct a low trust society with high transaction costs that allow you to be one of many parasites.
But rothbardianism legalizes parasitism under high transaction costs, that are WORSE than the parasitism of the state and its low transaction costs.
Rothbardianism is worse than statism.
Source date (UTC): 2014-06-06 02:51:00 UTC
http://www.thepcmdgazette.com/news/lesbian-mayor-rules-that-all-bathrooms-now-unisex/THE RULES OF SUPERPREDATOR COOPERATION
Someone needs to remind this woman that human males are the world’s most successful superpredator – and that we just BARELY manage to contain each other MOST of the time. And that we have all sorts of rules and habits and obligations in order to contain each other.
And if women don’t SEE those rules, habits and obligations or see the NEED for those rules, habits and obligations that has NOTHING to do with the NECESSITY for those rules habits and obligations.
Those rules, which we carefully but unknowingly evolved over millennia, allow us to thrive in a high trust society by carefully allocating incentives to males to cooperate at every level of society. Those rules are counter-intuitive, fragile and unique in human history.
W.E.I.R.D. societies like ours are an unnatural exception – a temporary oddity made possible by a short term asymmetry of technological innovation, soon to be quashed by social and reproductive and social superiority of universal paternalism and the traditional family.
Women are, if we catalog their votes and their publications, incredibly ‘dumb’ about political systems. I can only suspect that it’s that they have different intuitions than we men do. Because they demonstrate very different concerns from what men do – they take the art of containing males as a natural force of gravity, rather than a fragile accident of history.
We men create political systems to contain each other – and to force cooperation rather than predation and parasitism. Women are, in fact, only along for the ride. Because politics is the organized application of violence to provide means of cooperation between superpredators. And female participation in politics is a luxury of the success of the rules, habits and obligations that their male counterparts have built over the centuries.
**Feminism paired with socialism, is just a program that facilitates the conquest of egalitarian males, by inegalitarian males. Women are not material in the long run. But in the short run they have incrementally destroyed western civilization by destroying the incentives of males to act according to the rules, habits, and obligations needed to constrain males.**
The end of the single-motherhood era is near ended. Because without marriage and universal property rights, male parasitism, predation, paternalism and tyranny are logical preferences providing superior incentives.
Just how it is ladies. Deal with it.
Source date (UTC): 2014-06-04 10:24:00 UTC
RUSSIAN AND CHINESE INCENTIVES TO COOPERATE – LESS THAN THE REST
Russia and its satellites, backward, landlocked, without rivers, could not compete internationally. China, backward, insular, an enormous island, surrounded by sea, desert and mountains, with economically different regions, can be torn apart by international competition.
Isolated from the rest of the world, China and Russia and its satellites can internally cooperate, if they cannot externally compete.
The rest of the world has greater incentive to cooperate.
Source date (UTC): 2014-06-03 01:54:00 UTC
http://feedly.com/k/1hKmFahWheat farming produces individualism and trust. Rice farming nepotism and low trust.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-31 16:14:00 UTC
FREE RIDING IS NOT AN EXCEPTION IT IS THE RULE. IT IS NATURAL TO MAN. PROPERTY IS THE EXCEPTION. ITS UNNATURAL. AND CREATING THE INSTITUTIONAL HABIT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IS AN ACTIVE NOT PASSIVE PROJECT. [Y]a’ gotta’ understand: aristocracy is an activist form of defense. We evolved in a state of pervasive free riding. To create the institution of Property, you must deny people access to the fruits of your efforts except by voluntary exchange. To deny them access, you must use violence. You must first stop existing free riding. Then you must prevent future free riding. You cannot obtain liberty by pacifism, or reaction alone. Property requires activism. Because aggression against your property: the attempt to free ride upon your efforts, is not an exception – it is the RULE. Sorry. Aristocracy of the willing, for the willing.
FREE RIDING IS NOT AN EXCEPTION IT IS THE RULE. IT IS NATURAL TO MAN. PROPERTY IS THE EXCEPTION. ITS UNNATURAL. AND CREATING THE INSTITUTIONAL HABIT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IS AN ACTIVE NOT PASSIVE PROJECT. [Y]a’ gotta’ understand: aristocracy is an activist form of defense. We evolved in a state of pervasive free riding. To create the institution of Property, you must deny people access to the fruits of your efforts except by voluntary exchange. To deny them access, you must use violence. You must first stop existing free riding. Then you must prevent future free riding. You cannot obtain liberty by pacifism, or reaction alone. Property requires activism. Because aggression against your property: the attempt to free ride upon your efforts, is not an exception – it is the RULE. Sorry. Aristocracy of the willing, for the willing.
FREE RIDING IS NOT AN EXCEPTION IT IS THE RULE. IT IS NATURAL TO MAN. PROPERTY IS THE EXCEPTION. ITS UNNATURAL. AND CREATING THE INSTITUTIONAL HABIT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IS AN ACTIVE NOT PASSIVE PROJECT. [Y]a’ gotta’ understand: aristocracy is an activist form of defense. We evolved in a state of pervasive free riding. To create the institution of Property, you must deny people access to the fruits of your efforts except by voluntary exchange. To deny them access, you must use violence. You must first stop existing free riding. Then you must prevent future free riding. You cannot obtain liberty by pacifism, or reaction alone. Property requires activism. Because aggression against your property: the attempt to free ride upon your efforts, is not an exception – it is the RULE. Sorry. Aristocracy of the willing, for the willing.
FREE RIDING IS NOT AN EXCEPTION IT IS THE RULE. PROPERTY IS THE EXCEPTION. AND CREATING THE INSTITUTIONAL HABIT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IS AN ACTIVE NOT PASSIVE PROJECT.
Ya’ gotta’ understand: aristocracy is an activist form of defense.
We evolved in a state of pervasive free riding. To create the institution of Property, you must deny people access to the fruits of your efforts except by voluntary exchange. To deny them access, you must use violence. You must first stop existing free riding. Then you must prevent future free riding. You cannot obtain liberty by pacifism, or reaction alone. Property requires activism. Because aggression against your property: the attempt to free ride upon your efforts, is not an exception – it is the RULE.
Sorry.
Aristocracy of the willing, for the willing.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-29 06:37:00 UTC
Proportionality vs Trust.
(note to self)
Haidt refers to the moral instinct against free riding as “proportionality”, because our instinct includes a prohibition against disproportionate reward and consumption.
In a family or polity, that might be a correct projection. But I see it as constraint on consumption similar to the control of alphas. I am not sure it is a question of trust necessary for cooperation.
Free riding affects trust – willingness to cooperate. Punishment for violation of trust. Criminal (violence theft), Unethical (fraud and deception), Immoral (externalization).
Overconsumption may be immoral, perhaps. A deprivation of the commons. I suspect that is a better answer than proportionality – which is incalculable.
Yes. That’s probably correct.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-29 02:15:00 UTC