Theme: Education

  • ( Everyone, it seems, would like to create a quality philosophy group. But the p

    ( Everyone, it seems, would like to create a quality philosophy group. But the problems faced are these:

    1 – We all have an all-too-high opinion of whatever method of categorization, understanding, and decidability we discover. The Dunning-Kruger effect is more exaggerated in ethics, morality, politics and philosophy than any other discipline – for evolutionary reasons. We advocate for our reproductive strategy (gender, reproductive desirability, social class, and personality traits). We negotiate for and make excuses for our value to others in cooperation in reproduction, production, and commons.

    2 – It takes about six to ten years of studying philosophy, science, economics, and politics, and history to say much of anything at all that isn’t ridiculously uninformed. It takes the study of law to know why philosophy is in general ridiculous. Religion, philosophy and literature are carriers for inspirational ideation: reported preference. economics, law, and history are carriers for demonstrated preference. And social science if it has done anything, has confirmed for us the vast difference between reported preference and demonstrated preference.

    3 – Most philosophical argument seeks to outwit through various means of deception, other attempts to outwit previous forms of deception.

    4 – The difference between cunning (outwitting – immoral), negotiating (trading – ethical ), and deciding (truth – moral ) is a substantial difference in informational content, and symmetry of information used in decisions.

    5 – While public forums are good for learning how to debate the ignorant, incompetent, well-meaning, and those on a productive journey, – and possibly finding fellow travellers – they are actually pretty poor forums for finding and debating with people who possess knowledge, for the simple reason that you must bear a high costs of filtering in exchange for immediacy of discourse.

    (I work in public as an experient and it’s been useful pretty much because through repetition it helps me speak to less sophisticated audiences and find advocates.)

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-28 08:35:00 UTC

  • RESTORING THE CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS PRIOR TO THE ATTEMPT TO INDUSTRIALIZE A MONOPO

    RESTORING THE CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS PRIOR TO THE ATTEMPT TO INDUSTRIALIZE A MONOPOLY OF THE NUCLEAR FAMILY.

    We need to force the creation of (a) monasteries (education and caretaking) in the ‘scientific’ sense, and (b) regiments (emergency and defense), and (c) civic dormitories (commons construction and maintenance). These places need to provide room and board to men of character in each class, in exchange for civic labor. Strict behavioral requirements, preserving the sacredness of the commons, (and suppressing impulse), Privately managed non-profits (leaving membership discretionary and without state interference). They will absorb the excess male population that will only serve to increase, increase the scarcity of marriageable males, reduce the size and cost of the state, reduce the cost of commons construction and maintenance, improve the general health and welfare, allow us to return to handcrafted hand-maintained commons.And restore civic ‘ownership’. If in addition, we eliminate child support and alimony, the family will be restored in one or two generations. And where it isn’t we don’t need it to be.

    I have learned a great deal living on this side of the pond.

    The old ways assisted families in classes in compatibility, they were not industrialized societies trying to mass produce middle class from variously incompatible raw materials.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-26 03:26:00 UTC

  • Heck. I conduct the same kind of discourse as did aristotle and plato. And it’s

    Heck. I conduct the same kind of discourse as did aristotle and plato. And it’s free to all. The only difference is that I use facebook as my Porch. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-24 07:26:00 UTC

  • TIPS ON WRITING PROPERTARIAN ARGUMENTS USE ACTIVE VOICE 1) Learn one ‘aggressive

    TIPS ON WRITING PROPERTARIAN ARGUMENTS

    USE ACTIVE VOICE

    1) Learn one ‘aggressive’ or ‘honest’ technique: “Active Voice not Passive Voice”

    ‘John threw the ball’ not ‘the ball was thrown by john’. Read “passive voice” on the internet. This is where you’re having trouble with operational language.

    USE FINANCIAL AND CRIMINAL, NOT EXPERIENTIAL AND MORAL TERMINOLOGY

    2) make sure any MORAL term you use is converted into an economic or financial term showing not abridgment of your interpretation of the moral contract, but of objective theft independent of subjectively biased moral judgements

    SO THIS

    A cowardly man imposes costs upon kin and kith to the extent of being beyond redemption.

    SHOULD BE THIS

    A cowardly man imposes costs upon kin and kith to the extent of being beyond restitution.

    ANOTHER EXAMPLE

    “embodying” is yet another symbolism not an objective declaration or observation. instead:

    “demonstrating”, or possibly in this paragraph “forcing others to protect and produce for him…”

    CAUSES OF OUR PASSIVE VOICE

    We grow up with “Polite Speech” and polite speech asks us to avoid accusatory descriptions. This produces passive voice.

    We grow up with the habit of talking about the object (thing affected) rather than the subject (thing acting). This produces passive voice.

    John did this which caused these increases or decreases in those forms of capital, demonstrating that he is a thief or investor.

    YOU ARE MAKING FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC TRANSACTIONS INSTEAD OF MORAL JUDGEMENTS

    Propertarian arguments represent A LEDGER of TRANSACTIONS against property.

    Think of your arguments as software that’s narrating a set of accounting entries, and rendering a judgment of profit or loss.

    SUMMARY

    Just stick with the idea of subject acted on object, which caused this result, thereby producing a transaction against property resulting in a profit or loss.

    CLOSING: OUR PURPOSE

    Our purpose is to change from the MORAL AND MONOPOLY frame of decision making on common goods, to the SCIENTIFIC AND MARKET frame of decision on common goods.

    So we are revolutionizing the commons by asking “We have different objectives, but we can still cooperate if we trade. so why wont you be honest with me and trade? If you will trade, then I will trade. But if you will not trade and you want to engage in fraud or theft or violence, then I will remain moral, and not engage in theft, or fraud, but I WILL engage in violence, so that in the future you engage in truth and trade, or that you are dead, so you cannot commit fraud and theft.”

    This is the MORAL argument we put forward in propertarianism.

    “Why won’t you trade with me? If you will not trade with me then you may boycott trade with me – I will understand. But if you try to commit fraud and theft, directly or indirectly, as an individual or a group of any size, then I and other moral men, will not engage in theft and fraud, but we will engage in violence to end, perform restitution for, and punish, – and if necessary kill – those who engage in fraud and theft rather than trade or boycott.”


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-24 04:16:00 UTC

  • “one attracts more flies with honey.”— (anon) A priest, public intellectual, a

    —“one attracts more flies with honey.”— (anon)

    A priest, public intellectual, and merchant sells.

    A judge prosecutes.

    There is a difference between inspiration, education, coalition building, leadership, and prosecution, and judgement.

    The problem of our age is not inspiration – it’s deception.

    And I’m a prosecutor

    (no criticism of my debate partner, just an opportunity to reiterate my position)


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-22 06:37:00 UTC

  • La Respuesta correcta a la pregunta: ¿Que son los Derechos Humanos?

    Las palabras y frases que buscan responder a esta interrogante demuestran la tragedia de la educación de finales del siglo XX. Por lo cual se requieren de definiciones correctas y necesarias. Los derechos son obligaciones contractuales de una parte para abstenerse de llevar a cabo ciertas acciones: Dejar pasar oportunidades en detrimento de ganancias. Los derechos negativos: Son obligaciones contractuales de una parte para llevar a cabo acciones: asumir costos, y dejar pasar oportunidades por abandono (por ejemplo: cometer un fraude) Los derechos existenciales: Los derechos sólo existen cuando: Se obtienen en intercambios contractuales
y Se puede obligar su cumplimento en asuntos de disputa por medio de un tercero, un “asegurador”. 
 A lo largo de la historia, el gobierno ha sido el asegurador en última instancia. 
Los derechos no existen. Su existencia es creada por la construcción de un asegurador que usualmente es el gobierno. Los derechos deseados: Son aquellos que deseas poseer si puedes conseguir Alguien que desee realizar intercambios contigo
y Un asegurador que garantice que esos derechos serán cumplidos una vez que los hayas negociado. La Jerarquía de los derechos: Normativa: Normas, maneras, formas, procederes, ética y moralidad Contractual: Será explicada a fondo en otro post. Derechos políticos La ley propiamente dicha La legislación Las regulaciones 4. Los derechos humanos: Son ínter-estatales. Los derechos humanos son un intento por parte de las naciones occidentales en el mundo post-colonial y de la post-guerra para fijar los términos por los cuales los gobiernos habrían de respetar la soberanía (es decir las fronteras espaciales) de otros gobiernos.
En otras palabras, son un intento de prevenir los horrores de los países primitivos y en vías de desarrollo, contener al comunismo, constreñir los gobiernos expansionistas, y fijar el propósito del gobierno para el mejoramiento de las condiciones de vida de sus ciudadanos. 5. Los derechos naturales: Son científicamente necesarios, y son aquellos derechos necesarios para la evolución de la organización voluntaria de la producción de bienes y servicios (capitalismo) en la ausencia de parasitismo y depredación por organizaciones públicas o privadas. Todos los derechos naturales son derechos negativos, ya que nosotros sólo podemos abstenernos por igual de llevar a cabo ciertas acciones, por el hecho de que somos desiguales para actuar, y de la misma forma, no podemos, por nuestra desigualdad ser capaces de actuar. Y no podemos controlar los recursos necesarios para nuestras acciones. 

Los derechos humanos son derechos necesarios- aquellos necesarios para que la libertad humana esté protegida de depredadores – que cualquier gobierno que busque producir para sus ciudadanos (es decir actuar como un proveedor) si ese gobierno desea preservar su soberanía de acciones contra él debe ser firmante del contrato de los derechos humanos. Son los aseguradores en última instancia. Todos los derechos humanos son expresarles como derechos recíprocos de propiedad.
Todos los derechos naturales son expresarles como derechos de propiedad que recíprocamente se garantizan unos a otros.
Los derechos contra la no imposición de costos contra la vida, libertad y propiedad son derechos naturales. 
Ésta fue la fraseología original de la constitución de los Estados Unidos.

Todos los códigos morales pueden ser expresados como derechos de propiedad, porque esas acciones no son conocidas por las partes beneficiadas y se benefician de ellas.
Todos los códigos éticos pueden ser expresados como derechos de propiedad porque esas acciones entre partes involucradas se ven beneficiadas en una distribución asimétrica. La diferencia entre los derechos humanos (políticos) y los derechos naturales. Es científica: Los comunistas crearon una serie de “derechos” por medio de juntar firmas y votarlas en una serie de elecciones no-auténticas, el resultado fue el nacimiento de una mentira: los derechos positivos. Estos derechos no pueden ser asegurados sin violar todos los otros derechos. 
Es por ello que esos derechos no existen ni pueden existir. Los únicos derechos que podemos garantizar son los derechos negativos porque sólo los podemos poseer de forma igual para tener la habilidad de abstenernos de realizar ciertas acciones. Nosotros podemos crear y organizar gobiernos para poder crear derechos de propiedad. Podemos crear un asegurador de nuestra existencia (nuestra vida), libertad (acción) y propiedad (inventario). Todo lo demás que digamos sobre este tipo de cosas es de alguna forma, un colorido engaño Curt Doolittle 
El Instituto Propietarista
 Traducción de Alberto R. Zambrano U.

  • La Respuesta correcta a la pregunta: ¿Que son los Derechos Humanos?

    Las palabras y frases que buscan responder a esta interrogante demuestran la tragedia de la educación de finales del siglo XX. Por lo cual se requieren de definiciones correctas y necesarias. Los derechos son obligaciones contractuales de una parte para abstenerse de llevar a cabo ciertas acciones: Dejar pasar oportunidades en detrimento de ganancias. Los derechos negativos: Son obligaciones contractuales de una parte para llevar a cabo acciones: asumir costos, y dejar pasar oportunidades por abandono (por ejemplo: cometer un fraude) Los derechos existenciales: Los derechos sólo existen cuando: Se obtienen en intercambios contractuales
y Se puede obligar su cumplimento en asuntos de disputa por medio de un tercero, un “asegurador”. 
 A lo largo de la historia, el gobierno ha sido el asegurador en última instancia. 
Los derechos no existen. Su existencia es creada por la construcción de un asegurador que usualmente es el gobierno. Los derechos deseados: Son aquellos que deseas poseer si puedes conseguir Alguien que desee realizar intercambios contigo
y Un asegurador que garantice que esos derechos serán cumplidos una vez que los hayas negociado. La Jerarquía de los derechos: Normativa: Normas, maneras, formas, procederes, ética y moralidad Contractual: Será explicada a fondo en otro post. Derechos políticos La ley propiamente dicha La legislación Las regulaciones 4. Los derechos humanos: Son ínter-estatales. Los derechos humanos son un intento por parte de las naciones occidentales en el mundo post-colonial y de la post-guerra para fijar los términos por los cuales los gobiernos habrían de respetar la soberanía (es decir las fronteras espaciales) de otros gobiernos.
En otras palabras, son un intento de prevenir los horrores de los países primitivos y en vías de desarrollo, contener al comunismo, constreñir los gobiernos expansionistas, y fijar el propósito del gobierno para el mejoramiento de las condiciones de vida de sus ciudadanos. 5. Los derechos naturales: Son científicamente necesarios, y son aquellos derechos necesarios para la evolución de la organización voluntaria de la producción de bienes y servicios (capitalismo) en la ausencia de parasitismo y depredación por organizaciones públicas o privadas. Todos los derechos naturales son derechos negativos, ya que nosotros sólo podemos abstenernos por igual de llevar a cabo ciertas acciones, por el hecho de que somos desiguales para actuar, y de la misma forma, no podemos, por nuestra desigualdad ser capaces de actuar. Y no podemos controlar los recursos necesarios para nuestras acciones. 

Los derechos humanos son derechos necesarios- aquellos necesarios para que la libertad humana esté protegida de depredadores – que cualquier gobierno que busque producir para sus ciudadanos (es decir actuar como un proveedor) si ese gobierno desea preservar su soberanía de acciones contra él debe ser firmante del contrato de los derechos humanos. Son los aseguradores en última instancia. Todos los derechos humanos son expresarles como derechos recíprocos de propiedad.
Todos los derechos naturales son expresarles como derechos de propiedad que recíprocamente se garantizan unos a otros.
Los derechos contra la no imposición de costos contra la vida, libertad y propiedad son derechos naturales. 
Ésta fue la fraseología original de la constitución de los Estados Unidos.

Todos los códigos morales pueden ser expresados como derechos de propiedad, porque esas acciones no son conocidas por las partes beneficiadas y se benefician de ellas.
Todos los códigos éticos pueden ser expresados como derechos de propiedad porque esas acciones entre partes involucradas se ven beneficiadas en una distribución asimétrica. La diferencia entre los derechos humanos (políticos) y los derechos naturales. Es científica: Los comunistas crearon una serie de “derechos” por medio de juntar firmas y votarlas en una serie de elecciones no-auténticas, el resultado fue el nacimiento de una mentira: los derechos positivos. Estos derechos no pueden ser asegurados sin violar todos los otros derechos. 
Es por ello que esos derechos no existen ni pueden existir. Los únicos derechos que podemos garantizar son los derechos negativos porque sólo los podemos poseer de forma igual para tener la habilidad de abstenernos de realizar ciertas acciones. Nosotros podemos crear y organizar gobiernos para poder crear derechos de propiedad. Podemos crear un asegurador de nuestra existencia (nuestra vida), libertad (acción) y propiedad (inventario). Todo lo demás que digamos sobre este tipo de cosas es de alguna forma, un colorido engaño Curt Doolittle 
El Instituto Propietarista
 Traducción de Alberto R. Zambrano U.

  • “No need to teach the three R’s any more, we teach the three S’s: sex, self-este

    —“No need to teach the three R’s any more, we teach the three S’s: sex, self-esteem, and social justice!”—


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-20 04:18:00 UTC

  • The problem began when india ‘came of age’ they sent the new class to french, ge

    The problem began when india ‘came of age’ they sent the new class to french, german, and soviet universities for education, but lacked the Russian and Chinese military on the one end, and lacked the french and german cultural mores on the other. India is then, perhaps the country outside of south America that will suffer most severely for its association with socialism. Because between its lack of an ideological and committed military bureaucracy (Russia, china, turkey, iran, egypt, isreael), and between a still archaic culture (hindu irrational optimism and tolerance for disorder) it will be extremely problematic to ‘fix’ india without dividing it into smaller more manageable states. Or without an ideiolgical or religous group with militant intent, to eradicate corruptoin from what remains a familial if not tribal state.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-18 09:49:00 UTC

  • Our New Church: Lets Frame This Question Of The Church Correctly

    (important)

    [M]yths(greek, roman, nordic, german, french, british), Festivals, Plays(church), Judges (gods), Role Models (heroes), Virtues, Stoicism, Rhetoric, logic and grammar are highly paternal and aristocratic frameworks that generate high quality (eugenic). Christianity provided feminine and lower class virtues Insurance, charity, caretaking, compassion. To which later Christianity added a middle-class signal economy: chivalry, whereby a man could signal status by other than as a warrior, nobility, politician, lawyer, philosopher or household owner (businessman). But where the middle and even working classes, could demonstrate fitness through SERVICE. (I live in eastern Europe and it’s obvious it’s missing.)

    There is no reason that we cannot RATIONALLY praise (worship) and remember (ritualize) these heroes both pagan and aristocratic, and Christian and proletarian, and chivalrous and middle class, in our churches, rather than submitting to the authoritarian dominance that is antithetical to our western civilization’s aristocratic origins.

    I have argued that the forcible Christianization of the west is one of the worst crimes in history, right behind the roman extermination of the prehistoric religion of the British isles, by the systematic slaughter of its wise men. And these crimes probably pale in comparison to the forcible closure of the stoic schools – the west’s personal religion and a rational competitor to mystical buddhism,

    That we needed a church, a federal government and administrative literacy is no question. That we had to sell a series ofEgyptian, Babylonian and Hebrew lies to provide those practical services is very hard to sustain given the conditions we lived under using greek and British thought, and the conditions we lived under fertile crescent authoritarian mystical thought.

    Perhaps it is too much to ask how we could replicate the experience of our churches, with the rational and historical lessons of our history. But it is not hard to imagine that church, inspiring awe over those who came before us, presenting us with festivals, readings, plays, hymns and debates, would not provide the binding experience that we found under Christianity, while in the current state not having to pretend to listen to scripture as lessons more relevant to our day than would be the collected great minds of western civilization.

    The church functioned as media provider, and teacher, counselor, and judge. For the church to have meaning other than sentimental references to our childhood any such church must return to its central position as educator(information), counselor(emotional), advisor(financial), registrar (births, weddings, and deaths), judge(of family conflict and divorce) and ceremonial leader (festivals, celebrations, plays, and rituals) that provide the only existentially possible environment under which we throw down our weapons of war, of wealth, of status, of fitness, of health, when we enter the chamber, and greet each other as kin.

    It is this experience – the invocation of the safety of the pack response – that we call spirituality, and it’s exploration and mastery we call transcendence.

    This is a future church we can make. Live under, Evolve under, and persist for millennnia.

    Because within such a church there are no lies to be disproven by new discoveries, and we shall never likely see a time where we do not wish the services that such a church would provide for us.

    Western man, despite existing on the edge of the bronze age, in smaller numbers, and poorer, with worse climate, advancedFASTER than every other civilization on this earth in both the ancient and the modern worlds, because we discovered, and made use of truth.


    It was under our dark ages that we master and lived under lies.


    The cosmopolitan enlightenment reaction was to attempt another expression of the devil named Jehovah that the Gnostics warned us about. And having succeeded in imprisoning us in ignorance for nearly a thousand years, we broke free.
    Then Boaz, Freud, Marx, Cantor, Keynes, Rand and Rothbard, and Leo Strauss created three versions of utopian lies using same techniques of suggestion, propaganda using new pulpits of the media, and saturation by repetition, and ridicule of dissent, to sell women and our underclasses the second defeat of the west.


    No you may feel that we should return to the last set of lies that they sold to our people under the cover of our youth and ignorance. But this is to remain in the Devil Jehova’s trap.


    Our god is truth: the god of physical law, the god of nature, the god of natural law. If you wish to restore a church to the true god, our god, then that is simple enough to do. We have captured his words for over two thousand five hundred years, in the words of a thousand profits in every field of endeavor.


    The only god that would demand we believe falsehoods is no god, but a devil. The only god that will save us from that devil’s lies, is the one who gave birth to us: truth.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute, Kiev.
    ( Aaron Kahland Josh Jeppson )