[T]he most honest answer is not to start with a false frame of ‘we’ and instead examine the country by voting patterns that demonstrate those preferences (see Pew Research) for an empirical analysis not one of confirming existing priors by guessing correlations. Roughly speaking, the north-south divide present since the civil war remains. Primarily, people vote by two criteria: Race, Religion and Marital status. White men vote red and always have voted as such. White married women vote predominantly red and have voted as such. White single women vote predominantly blue by the largest margin (again obvious) Everyone else votes by race (blue) against the white absolute nuclear family. In other words, people vote their reproductive strategies. Which should be obvious. Ever since the South abandoned it’s post-reconstruction prohibition on the Republican party (the party of Lincoln, and the party against slavery, and against the expansion of the southern alliance into the western territories), the parties have increasingly shifted demographically to reflect white absolute nuclear families – with the family as the central unit of reproduction, production, and education that preserve capital (red) – against the traditional, serial-marriage, and single mother (fatherless) families that cannot preserve capital in the homestead. People retain their reproductive strategies, family structures, moral codes and norms across many generations. It takes about 400 years to rotate a family upward in social and economic class. (yep. sorry.) The four waves of British Isle immigrants still use the family structures, norms, and values that they did prior to migration. The Germans still use theirs. The Italians theirs. The French theirs. Et al. No one assimilates morally or normatively at all. We assimilate commercially, and commercialism is America’s cultural tradition. But politically we never assimilate at all. Why? Because political action by nature of its imprecision is a demonstrated preference of a moral, not empirical, not commercial bias. And when we call upon our intuitions in the face of overwhelming choices, we do what nature evolved us to do: decide by our reproductive strategies. Why? For impolitic reasons: largely speaking northern Europeans eradicated their lower classes through a combination of manorialism, delayed reproduction, and aggressive hanging of 1/2-1% of the troublemakers per year. And anyone who understands the theory of compound interest will likely understand the tremendous genetic impact of that process over the 1000 years of hanging, and the 3500 years of agrarianism. Effectively, all northern Europeans are members of the middle class, and protestant – what is called ‘the Hanjal line’. The Catholics represent largely the unmodified natural distribution of the classes, practicing traditional families. The Africans that came as slaves have returned (thanks to 60’s progressives) to their traditional serial marriages (70% of all births to single mothers). Correlation is not causation. Humans are unequal. We carry our tribal histories with us in our genes, in our family structures, in our morals and norms, because these were and remain, reproductive strategies. As such all votes are demographic votes. No one assimilates. No one changes. Some reproduce more, some reproduce less, and he who reproduces more than others eventually wins. No one is converted. No one is persuaded. No one is convinced. At least no one sufficiently convince to alter his political action sufficiently to affect outcomes. Net is, all our political debate is a Victorian parlor game. Nothing more. We are, in matters beyond our direct perception, such as political choice, mere puppets to our genes. If that doesn’t sour you on the irrelevance of democratic choice nothing will: in the end, over time, the class that reproduces most wins. And because majoritarian rule forces a monopoly of control, the lower classes with greatest reproduction win. And under redistribution, we transfer rates of reproduction from the middle class to the lower. And therefore transfer our future to the most numerous of the lower classes. Diversity decreases trust, decreases economic velocity, increases political conflict and increases demand for a totalitarian state as arbiter of differences. Americans, Canadians, and Australians have a higher standard of living for the sole reason that the anglos used advanced weaponry (including germs) to conquer primitive peoples and sell of the land and unexploited resources to generations of immigrants. It has absolutely nothing to do with our way of life other than the initial immigrants from Britain practiced common law (which is empirical), and were almost entirely from the genetic middle classes (the french in Quebec are from the lower class, hence aside from their Catholicism and french love of authority, their difference with english Canada). The germans were not a problem to integrate, and so we never hear about the challenge of german immigration despite the fact that the majority of white america is of german ancestry not British. That is because they were not a problem. Everyone else was. If you trace supreme court decisions they reflect the religion and class of the person voting. It hurts. It’s true. That’s all there is to it. The only thing that melts in our non-existent melting pot, is rule of law. Everything else is just an expression of the ongoing battle between our genes that we call class, race, and religious competition. Democracy is sufficient means of deciding how to make use of scarce resources among multiple priorities. It is an insufficient means of deciding how to make use of scarce or plentiful resource of any kind between competing interests. Science very often tells us what we don’t want to hear. The democratic era, in the future, will be seen as a pseudoscientific one. Just as the Religious era is seen as a mystical one. They’re both networks of falsehoods. Comfortable lies. The truth is quite simple. We are super-predators that have found that competition through economics productivity is superior to competition through direct violence. Western utopianism ended with the abandonment of communism that had held the rest of the world in regressive poverty. We were able to enjoy luxury goods because of privileges granted to us by our predecessors. The spoils of democracy (and any r-selected behavior) are luxury goods, not beneficial goods. Time to give up pseudoscience, the same way we gave up mysticism. As painful as it may be. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
Theme: Governance
-
Government(Particular) vs Rule (Universal)
[T]here is a very great difference between government and rule.
- Rule:
- Government:
I am not sure all peoples can easily generate judges capable of rule by rule of law. Although wth sufficient training it appears largely possible. I do not think other peoples should participate in the selection of a commons for a people, only in the prevention of privatization of commons, or the socialization of losses into commons. In this sense, colonialism is very different from adjudication. And my feeling is that most nations would benefit from hiring judges. And most would benefit from not being colonized. Rule of law works over time. Law is a science. The production of commons is an extension of the family. It can only grow with the people themselves.
-
Government(Particular) vs Rule (Universal)
[T]here is a very great difference between government and rule.
- Rule:
- Government:
I am not sure all peoples can easily generate judges capable of rule by rule of law. Although wth sufficient training it appears largely possible. I do not think other peoples should participate in the selection of a commons for a people, only in the prevention of privatization of commons, or the socialization of losses into commons. In this sense, colonialism is very different from adjudication. And my feeling is that most nations would benefit from hiring judges. And most would benefit from not being colonized. Rule of law works over time. Law is a science. The production of commons is an extension of the family. It can only grow with the people themselves.
-
Defense vs Rule vs Government
[I] have no problem defending or ruling other peoples. These are both moral and costly. I have a problem with governing other people. And profiting from it. Why? Because defense and rule of law are universal truths. Governing: producing commons, are preferences and strategies. I consider that none of even the most enlightened people’s business. And worse, beyond their capacity.
-
Defense vs Rule vs Government
[I] have no problem defending or ruling other peoples. These are both moral and costly. I have a problem with governing other people. And profiting from it. Why? Because defense and rule of law are universal truths. Governing: producing commons, are preferences and strategies. I consider that none of even the most enlightened people’s business. And worse, beyond their capacity.
-
The Purpose of Forming A Polity? Discounts.
[C]ommons produce opportunities (lower opportunity costs) and reduce risk (reduce transaction costs), the purpose of which is to incentivize people to seize opportunities. In other words, it is not that the externalities are non-excludable (because many are) but that ***the purpose of forming a polity is the production of discounts on opportunity costs, transaction costs, and switching costs.*** This is the source of wealth. we are not wealthier in time and effort, we have used time and effort to decrease costs such that everything is cheaper in time and effort. Externalities may be non excludable, but the creation of negative externalities is open to prohibition, and universally prohibited. That’s what distinguishes ‘moral’ (external) and ‘ethical’ (internal). We prohibit both internal (unethical) and external (immoral) actions all the time in all cultures in all civilizations. (and we likewise fail to for that matter.) Lets define ‘underproduced’ as referring to a structure of production of a good or service that is impossible to construct under the voluntary organization of production. The method of producing such ‘underproduced’ goods then is subsidy. Which is exactly how we do it. We take money from other structures of production (distort them), and we instead buy (incentivize) people to produce the ‘underproduced’ good or service. This is called a mixed economy. And everywhere I know of practices a mixed economy. The question I think at hand, is not whether a mixed economy in fact produces greater wealth for all members, it is whether acts of parasitism and genetic warfare are employed within this mixed economy because of the consequences of reliance upon monopoly government. And I think the vote is in: yes. Democracy is used by the worst people to prey upon the best. There is no value in burning middle and upper class genes to increase lower middle and lower class genes. And that is what we are doing. That is all we are doing, when we engage in producing ‘unproducables’. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
The Purpose of Forming A Polity? Discounts.
[C]ommons produce opportunities (lower opportunity costs) and reduce risk (reduce transaction costs), the purpose of which is to incentivize people to seize opportunities. In other words, it is not that the externalities are non-excludable (because many are) but that ***the purpose of forming a polity is the production of discounts on opportunity costs, transaction costs, and switching costs.*** This is the source of wealth. we are not wealthier in time and effort, we have used time and effort to decrease costs such that everything is cheaper in time and effort. Externalities may be non excludable, but the creation of negative externalities is open to prohibition, and universally prohibited. That’s what distinguishes ‘moral’ (external) and ‘ethical’ (internal). We prohibit both internal (unethical) and external (immoral) actions all the time in all cultures in all civilizations. (and we likewise fail to for that matter.) Lets define ‘underproduced’ as referring to a structure of production of a good or service that is impossible to construct under the voluntary organization of production. The method of producing such ‘underproduced’ goods then is subsidy. Which is exactly how we do it. We take money from other structures of production (distort them), and we instead buy (incentivize) people to produce the ‘underproduced’ good or service. This is called a mixed economy. And everywhere I know of practices a mixed economy. The question I think at hand, is not whether a mixed economy in fact produces greater wealth for all members, it is whether acts of parasitism and genetic warfare are employed within this mixed economy because of the consequences of reliance upon monopoly government. And I think the vote is in: yes. Democracy is used by the worst people to prey upon the best. There is no value in burning middle and upper class genes to increase lower middle and lower class genes. And that is what we are doing. That is all we are doing, when we engage in producing ‘unproducables’. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
The Second Great Criticism of Democracy
(important)(very important) [Y]ou see, they taught us that the BALANCE OF POWER was what kept us safe from authoritarianism. But this is both false and immaterial. It distracted us from the reason for western institutional and cultural success. There are only three means of organizing man: force, gossip and exchange. We refer to these three means of organization as weapons of influence or methods of coercion. By constructing three houses: 1) aristocracy/military/law of property; 2) church/priesthood/law of family/insurance; 3) burgher/commerce/law of contract; …and requiring the at least tacit acceptance of the other two, each can specialize in the most rapid rate of invention in his means of organizing the polity for the construction of commons. So just as the market can conduct more and faster research into the construction of goods and services, the market for ORDER consisting of the three great specializations, can conduct more and faster research into the construction of commons – without the hindrance of the others. Only the knowledge of the interests of the others. In other words, not by APPROVAL but by DISSENT. Democracy reverses this evolutionary strategy requiring approval and ignoring dissent – and so democracy increases opportunity for parasitism and rent seeking in order to gain passage of every single piece of legislation. If we combine private property (anglo saxon/ aryan), common law (organic evolutionary law), high trust (aryan and christian), rule of law (aryan or at least anglo saxon) we then end up with a population that innovates in the suppression of parasitism and rent seeking almost as fast as it innovates in organization for any given production: private, commons, or family. Hoppe like others has solved the problem of the failure of incentives. I see that as the first analytic criticism of democracy. However, I feel that it is not a causal criticism but merely a consequential one. So in this SECOND criticism of democracy I put forth that the success of the west was not so much in small government as it was in the distribution of government (the production of commons) into specializations requiring survival of DISSENT by the competing houses rather than a monopoly requiring assent. In this analysis, democracy then is merely a sham: a scam by which a group seeks to monopolize powers of coercion in order to hold power by requiring assent rather than surviving dissent. Now, I for a moment let us look at the philosophy of science: in the sequence: {free association, hypothesis, theory, law, truth, tautology} we look for the truth that survives criticism (falsification). The search for truth is one of survival of criticism: dissent. It is not one of justification: assent. So this is also why democracies must engage in constant postmodern lying and propagandizing: because they must manufacture falsity in order to justify falsity. Conversely, aristocratic egalitarianism – the philosophy of the west – is one of survival of dissent. Or stated more simply, the method of organizing the west has be SCIENTIFIC. Which is why the west invented and used science in all walks of life. Because the civilization has practiced scientific action even in its most mystical eras. We can end this monotheistic monopolistic government by assent and restore our anglo-saxon scientific government: three (or more) houses each of which acts according to its interests but whose actions must survive dissent by a jury selected by lot of the constituency of the other houses. More as I continue my work. But I thought it prudent to make the Second Great Criticism of Democracy its own subject of discussion. The second great criticism then is that it is an intentionally unscientific method of government inferior to that form of government which was responsibile for our success.
-
The Second Great Criticism of Democracy
(important)(very important) [Y]ou see, they taught us that the BALANCE OF POWER was what kept us safe from authoritarianism. But this is both false and immaterial. It distracted us from the reason for western institutional and cultural success. There are only three means of organizing man: force, gossip and exchange. We refer to these three means of organization as weapons of influence or methods of coercion. By constructing three houses: 1) aristocracy/military/law of property; 2) church/priesthood/law of family/insurance; 3) burgher/commerce/law of contract; …and requiring the at least tacit acceptance of the other two, each can specialize in the most rapid rate of invention in his means of organizing the polity for the construction of commons. So just as the market can conduct more and faster research into the construction of goods and services, the market for ORDER consisting of the three great specializations, can conduct more and faster research into the construction of commons – without the hindrance of the others. Only the knowledge of the interests of the others. In other words, not by APPROVAL but by DISSENT. Democracy reverses this evolutionary strategy requiring approval and ignoring dissent – and so democracy increases opportunity for parasitism and rent seeking in order to gain passage of every single piece of legislation. If we combine private property (anglo saxon/ aryan), common law (organic evolutionary law), high trust (aryan and christian), rule of law (aryan or at least anglo saxon) we then end up with a population that innovates in the suppression of parasitism and rent seeking almost as fast as it innovates in organization for any given production: private, commons, or family. Hoppe like others has solved the problem of the failure of incentives. I see that as the first analytic criticism of democracy. However, I feel that it is not a causal criticism but merely a consequential one. So in this SECOND criticism of democracy I put forth that the success of the west was not so much in small government as it was in the distribution of government (the production of commons) into specializations requiring survival of DISSENT by the competing houses rather than a monopoly requiring assent. In this analysis, democracy then is merely a sham: a scam by which a group seeks to monopolize powers of coercion in order to hold power by requiring assent rather than surviving dissent. Now, I for a moment let us look at the philosophy of science: in the sequence: {free association, hypothesis, theory, law, truth, tautology} we look for the truth that survives criticism (falsification). The search for truth is one of survival of criticism: dissent. It is not one of justification: assent. So this is also why democracies must engage in constant postmodern lying and propagandizing: because they must manufacture falsity in order to justify falsity. Conversely, aristocratic egalitarianism – the philosophy of the west – is one of survival of dissent. Or stated more simply, the method of organizing the west has be SCIENTIFIC. Which is why the west invented and used science in all walks of life. Because the civilization has practiced scientific action even in its most mystical eras. We can end this monotheistic monopolistic government by assent and restore our anglo-saxon scientific government: three (or more) houses each of which acts according to its interests but whose actions must survive dissent by a jury selected by lot of the constituency of the other houses. More as I continue my work. But I thought it prudent to make the Second Great Criticism of Democracy its own subject of discussion. The second great criticism then is that it is an intentionally unscientific method of government inferior to that form of government which was responsibile for our success.
-
THE SECOND GREAT CRITICISM OF DEMOCRACY (important)(very important) You see, the
THE SECOND GREAT CRITICISM OF DEMOCRACY
(important)(very important)
You see, they taught us that the BALANCE OF POWER was what kept us safe from authoritarianism. But this is both false and immaterial. It distracted us from the reason for western institutional and cultural success.
There are only three means of organizing man: 1) force, 2) gossip and 3) exchange. We refer to these three means of organization as weapons of influence or methods of coercion.
By constructing three houses that reflect these three means of organizing man:
1) aristocracy/military/law of property;
2) church/priesthood/law of family/insurance;
3) burgher/commerce/law of contract;
…and requiring the at least tacit acceptance of the other two, each can specialize in the most rapid rate of invention in his means of organizing the polity for the construction of commons.
So just as the market can conduct more and faster research into the construction of goods and services, the market for ORDER consisting of the three great specializations, can conduct more and faster research into the construction of commons – without the hindrance of the others. Only the knowledge of the interests of the others. In other words, not by APPROVAL but by DISSENT. Democracy reverses this evolutionary strategy requiring approval and ignoring dissent – and so democracy increases opportunity for parasitism and rent seeking in order to gain passage of every single piece of legislation.
If we combine private property (anglo saxon/ aryan), common law (organic evolutionary law), high trust (aryan and christian), rule of law (aryan or at least anglo saxon) we then end up with a population that innovates in the suppression of parasitism and rent seeking almost as fast as it innovates in organization for any given production: private, commons, or family.
Hoppe like others has solved the problem of the failure of incentives. I see that as the first analytic criticism of democracy. However, I feel that it is not a causal criticism but merely a consequential one. So in this SECOND criticism of democracy I put forth that the success of the west was not so much in small government as it was in the distribution of government (the production of commons) into specializations requiring survival of DISSENT by the competing houses rather than a monopoly requiring assent.
In this analysis, democracy then is merely a sham: a scam by which a group seeks to monopolize powers of coercion in order to hold power by requiring assent rather than surviving dissent.
Now, I for a moment let us look at the philosophy of science: in the sequence: {free association, hypothesis, theory, law, truth, tautology} we look for the truth that survives criticism (falsification). The search for truth is one of survival of criticism: dissent. It is not one of justification: assent.
So this is also why democracies must engage in constant postmodern lying and propagandizing: because they must manufacture falsity in order to justify falsity.
Conversely, aristocratic egalitarianism – the philosophy of the west – is one of survival of dissent. Or stated more simply, the method of organizing the west has be SCIENTIFIC. Which is why the west invented and used science in all walks of life. Because the civilization has practiced scientific action even in its most mystical eras.
We can end this monotheistic monopolistic government by assent and restore our anglo-saxon scientific government: three (or more) houses each of which acts according to its interests but whose actions must survive dissent by a jury selected by lot of the constituency of the other houses.
More as I continue my work.
But I thought it prudent to make the Second Great Criticism of Democracy its own subject of discussion. The second great criticism then is that it is an intentionally unscientific method of government inferior to that form of government which was responsible for our success.
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-01 04:03:00 UTC