“Naval strategists are struggling to find ways to counter a rising Chinese Navy. The easiest and most comfortable course is to ask for more ships and aircraft, but with a defense budget that may have reached its peak, that may not be a viable strategy. Privateering, authorized by letters of marque, could offer a low-cost tool to enhance deterrence in peacetime and gain advantage in wartime. It would attack an asymmetric vulnerability of China, which has a much larger merchant fleet than the United States. Indeed, an attack on Chinese global trade would undermine China’s entire economy and threaten the regime’s stability. Finally, despite pervasive myths to the contrary, U.S. privateering is not prohibited by U.S. or international law.” https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2020/april/unleash-privateers born too late to explore the high seas 🙁 born too early to explore the solar system 🙁 born just in time for the revival of piracy
Theme: Governance
-
Avast Ye Landlubbers, Tis Time to Hoist the Black Flag, Spit on Ye Hands and Begin Slitting Throats!
“Naval strategists are struggling to find ways to counter a rising Chinese Navy. The easiest and most comfortable course is to ask for more ships and aircraft, but with a defense budget that may have reached its peak, that may not be a viable strategy. Privateering, authorized by letters of marque, could offer a low-cost tool to enhance deterrence in peacetime and gain advantage in wartime. It would attack an asymmetric vulnerability of China, which has a much larger merchant fleet than the United States. Indeed, an attack on Chinese global trade would undermine China’s entire economy and threaten the regime’s stability. Finally, despite pervasive myths to the contrary, U.S. privateering is not prohibited by U.S. or international law.” https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2020/april/unleash-privateers born too late to explore the high seas 🙁 born too early to explore the solar system 🙁 born just in time for the revival of piracy
-
The Point of Demarcation Is Individual vs Political
The Point of Demarcation Is Individual vs Political https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/the-point-of-demarcation-is-individual-vs-political-2/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 04:00:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265855489742692352
-
The Point of Demarcation Is Individual vs Political
Apr 22, 2020, 2:15 PM There are good people in every group. There are bad people in every group. What matters is whether the good or the bad people in every group advance their, and their group’s interest to integrate into our natural law – or whether they resist integration in to our Natural law; or use resistance movements to seek bribes to conform to our natural law; or seek parasitism by taking advantage of our vulnerability – our tolerance – under our natural law. Our Natural Law is empirical and it tells us we aren’t intolerant enough. If it’s interpersonal then exhaust tolerance (christianity). If it’s political then zero tolerance (Doolittle). It’s not a difficult disambiguation, demarcation, distinction, difference. 😉 Be intolerant. Otherwise you’re committing fraud by not paying to cost of maintaining the commons, under pretense your convenience is a conviction. It’s not. It’s fraud. Be intolerant.
-
The Point of Demarcation Is Individual vs Political
Apr 22, 2020, 2:15 PM There are good people in every group. There are bad people in every group. What matters is whether the good or the bad people in every group advance their, and their group’s interest to integrate into our natural law – or whether they resist integration in to our Natural law; or use resistance movements to seek bribes to conform to our natural law; or seek parasitism by taking advantage of our vulnerability – our tolerance – under our natural law. Our Natural Law is empirical and it tells us we aren’t intolerant enough. If it’s interpersonal then exhaust tolerance (christianity). If it’s political then zero tolerance (Doolittle). It’s not a difficult disambiguation, demarcation, distinction, difference. 😉 Be intolerant. Otherwise you’re committing fraud by not paying to cost of maintaining the commons, under pretense your convenience is a conviction. It’s not. It’s fraud. Be intolerant.
-
Military as Source of Our Strategy vs Being Undermined to Destroy Our Strategy
Military as Source of Our Strategy vs Being Undermined to Destroy Our Strategy https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/military-as-source-of-our-strategy-vs-being-undermined-to-destroy-our-strategy/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 04:00:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265855324134821889
-
Military as Source of Our Strategy vs Being Undermined to Destroy Our Strategy
May 5, 2020, 11:01 AM by Alex Hill 1.) 4GW makes support personnel primary targets. In fact, that’s the entire basis of it. Militias need to have as much self sufficiency and as little logistical needs as possible. The regular military is bogged down as soon as insurgents lay IEDs aimed at logistics convoys. 2.) a militia is not regular military. We can’t afford dedicated specialization in the same fashion as the regular military’s MOS system. Everyone has to be generally skilled much in the same was a Green Beret ODA team works with specific team roles. This also echoes the urban specialized labor versus the rural generalized labor divide. 3.) there is a direct correlation between the rise of feminism and the rise of women in the military, and the military has repeatedly been used as a social experiment because of its top-down nature. Then they’ll want to be able to exercise political suffrage because of service, which then jeopardizes the polity with the politics of Feels. That would be repeating the same mistakes we’ve made and I won’t have any of it.
-
Military as Source of Our Strategy vs Being Undermined to Destroy Our Strategy
May 5, 2020, 11:01 AM by Alex Hill 1.) 4GW makes support personnel primary targets. In fact, that’s the entire basis of it. Militias need to have as much self sufficiency and as little logistical needs as possible. The regular military is bogged down as soon as insurgents lay IEDs aimed at logistics convoys. 2.) a militia is not regular military. We can’t afford dedicated specialization in the same fashion as the regular military’s MOS system. Everyone has to be generally skilled much in the same was a Green Beret ODA team works with specific team roles. This also echoes the urban specialized labor versus the rural generalized labor divide. 3.) there is a direct correlation between the rise of feminism and the rise of women in the military, and the military has repeatedly been used as a social experiment because of its top-down nature. Then they’ll want to be able to exercise political suffrage because of service, which then jeopardizes the polity with the politics of Feels. That would be repeating the same mistakes we’ve made and I won’t have any of it.
-
Lead Follow or Get out Of the Way 😉
May 6, 2020, 11:24 AM
—“Plain language that we can all agree on.”—Stephen Wells
I’ve been consistent in my position. (a) I don’t practice equality even among my kinfolk – I practice loyalty and noblesse oblige. (b) researchers in the sciences produce research. activists gain status followers and influence by distributing it. I manufacture intellectual weaponry. it’s “your” (collective) job to figure out how to use it. 😉 (c) this ensures you are leaders and we distribute leadership rather than making me the center of anything at all. I manufacture goods that leaders will use. It’s a natural selection process. And if you can use P you pass. 😉 Now go out and lead. === OR By Noah J Revoy === You don’t have to agree. – Lead if you can understand, agree and can create. – Follow if you can understand and agree. – Or else get out of the way.
-
Lead Follow or Get out Of the Way 😉
May 6, 2020, 11:24 AM
—“Plain language that we can all agree on.”—Stephen Wells
I’ve been consistent in my position. (a) I don’t practice equality even among my kinfolk – I practice loyalty and noblesse oblige. (b) researchers in the sciences produce research. activists gain status followers and influence by distributing it. I manufacture intellectual weaponry. it’s “your” (collective) job to figure out how to use it. 😉 (c) this ensures you are leaders and we distribute leadership rather than making me the center of anything at all. I manufacture goods that leaders will use. It’s a natural selection process. And if you can use P you pass. 😉 Now go out and lead. === OR By Noah J Revoy === You don’t have to agree. – Lead if you can understand, agree and can create. – Follow if you can understand and agree. – Or else get out of the way.