Theme: Governance

  • We were wrong in WW1. Uniting Germany and Russia was in all our interests. We we

    We were wrong in WW1. Uniting Germany and Russia was in all our interests. We were wrong in WW2. We were wrong in the Gulf.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-07 13:35:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/629647031825469440

    Reply addressees: @JulieBorowski

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/629413750332911616


    IN REPLY TO:

    @JulieBorowski

    Is america the greatest nation in the history of history or nah?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/629413750332911616

  • RUSSIA: Only Reformation of your trust will end American Hegemony. And ending it

    RUSSIA: Only Reformation of your trust will end American Hegemony. And ending it is good for us all. http://www.propertarianism.com/U2zeI #tcot #nrx #tlot


    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-07 12:00:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/629623134686191616

  • We Need A Name For Propertarian “Politics”.

    [T]HE UNIFICATION OF MORALITY, PHILOSOPHY, SCIENCE, AND LAW


    1) Testimonialism (Epistemology),
    2) Propertarianism(Ethics), and;
    3) Strict-Construction Dissent Liberalism: the multi-house market for the production of commons(Politics).

    (I am trying to figure out a name for propertarian and testimonial Politics)

  • We Need A Name For Propertarian “Politics”.

    [T]HE UNIFICATION OF MORALITY, PHILOSOPHY, SCIENCE, AND LAW


    1) Testimonialism (Epistemology),
    2) Propertarianism(Ethics), and;
    3) Strict-Construction Dissent Liberalism: the multi-house market for the production of commons(Politics).

    (I am trying to figure out a name for propertarian and testimonial Politics)

  • THINKING. TRUST. RUSSIA. Despite my criticism of Russian politics and culture si

    THINKING. TRUST. RUSSIA.

    Despite my criticism of Russian politics and culture since the invasion of Ukraine for purely dishonest reasons, I tend to have deep affection for Russian people, even when I think they are absurd, superstitious and crazy.

    Because I love that they are brave. Americans are brave by and large *outside of the millennial generation. Some brits are brave, if a minority. But continentals seem submissive and feminized to the core.

    So that is why I love Russians. Every crazy, lunatic, superstitious, conspiracy-theorizing, pseudoscientific, one of them – at least in the middle and upper classes. Russian working class is as boorish as the come, and the saddest example of white people( outside of California. lol).

    The wonderful thing about Russians is personal craftsmanship – pride in cunning in particular (which blows up as frequently as it succeeds). But they are very proud of their work, and very prideful in judging it. I find them very American in this regard.

    Unlike americans they do not easily trust one another, so while individual work is exceptional, collective work must be managed. And management is universally poor among Russians.

    The most obvious obstacle to Russian (and Ukrainian) trust is that admitting ignorance to others places you at the mercy of those who claim to possess knowledge that they almost always don’t have, but seek as a means of obtaining status, control, and as a consequence, work avoidance. Achieving ‘rest’ (laziness) is somehow seen as a reward, or bonus, or status symbol (Mafia Ethics – Russia is a Mafia Culture, just as Judaism is a Mafia Culture, and the two are closely related in that Judaism relies on cunning and Russian culture relies upon force).

    Russians ‘fence’ to demonstrate who should be in control. They lack the socratic and jesuit, and anglo technique of slowly ‘seeking to understand’ one another’s position. Women do this all the time. Instead Russian men seek to trip one another up or argue for position of authority rather than seek to collect Knowledge from each other and come to a consensus. Men do this all the time.

    This is how trust is built between peers. But Russians, like the Chinese and muslims, always seek hierarchy.

    The reason to do business with anglos and germans is because they are trustworthy and honest, and friction and risk are reduced. The reason other cultures like to work with their own is that they understand one another’s lie-signals and so they can lie honestly with one another and consider it manners. It is less economically productive but more comfortable for them. Conversely, when working with higher trust peoples, the feel weaker, or more nervous.

    Now, Muscovites are not equal to Russians. Many Moscow business people are like very poor versions of Germans. They are highly empirical, and work very hard. But they live in a world of corruption and theft, and fragile infrastructure. So they must be more skeptical than the westerners.

    I have more than a few times tripped up using anglo french political language with Russians and they view it as dishonest or patronizing. I must keep it in mind at all times.

    I am not an authority on this subject. I write so that I can understand it. I think I have come to understand, a bit, the Russian character. But I can only empathize so far. I know who I am and where I come from. We are the most trusting people on earth – to our own detriment.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-07 10:37:00 UTC

  • DEAR RUSSIANS: TRUST The only way to institutionally manufacture widespread trus

    DEAR RUSSIANS: TRUST

    The only way to institutionally manufacture widespread trust is an incorruptible independent judiciary, the common organic law, property rights to property-en-toto, public registries of property ownership, universal standing in matters of the commons, and the most severe prosecution of perjury.

    The world will trust you only when you can trust yourselves.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-07 03:21:00 UTC

  • Yes, You Can Use Violence To Create Peace

    —“You can’t bomb people into peace”— [A]rguably false. The great ‘peaces’ have all been the result of those empires possessing and exercising disproportionate power over trade routes, and in doing so creating single commercial zones, so that all competition is forced into the market for goods and services, and all political and military competition is suppressed. So the evidence is quite the contrary: you absolutely can bomb into peace. No question about it. In fact, bombing into peace is the standard by which such things are accomplished. The question is not the bombs, but whether one chooses to rule or exploit those one has bombed. If one chooses to rule, and rules by rule of law, then who GOVERNS is something quite different. Most polities will tolerate rule if they can continue governance (discretionary production of commons). It is not the provision of commons (government) that challenges less advanced people, but the adjudication of differences by objective means.

    Aristocracy’s function is to rule, not necessarily to govern. We prohibit violence and theft, prohibit error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit., and adjudicate differences. We do not favor much else other than beauty. Aristocracy uses limits. Hypotheses we leave to others.
  • Yes, You Can Use Violence To Create Peace

    —“You can’t bomb people into peace”— [A]rguably false. The great ‘peaces’ have all been the result of those empires possessing and exercising disproportionate power over trade routes, and in doing so creating single commercial zones, so that all competition is forced into the market for goods and services, and all political and military competition is suppressed. So the evidence is quite the contrary: you absolutely can bomb into peace. No question about it. In fact, bombing into peace is the standard by which such things are accomplished. The question is not the bombs, but whether one chooses to rule or exploit those one has bombed. If one chooses to rule, and rules by rule of law, then who GOVERNS is something quite different. Most polities will tolerate rule if they can continue governance (discretionary production of commons). It is not the provision of commons (government) that challenges less advanced people, but the adjudication of differences by objective means.

    Aristocracy’s function is to rule, not necessarily to govern. We prohibit violence and theft, prohibit error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit., and adjudicate differences. We do not favor much else other than beauty. Aristocracy uses limits. Hypotheses we leave to others.
  • Q&A: Revolution. Will it Result in the ‘Right’ People?

    (worth repeating)QUESTION:

    —“How do we demand a return to an Aristocracy of the right people? This is a steep hill we’re climbing.”—

    ANSWER: [T]he right people are impossible to know. And even such, it’s not a matter of choosing the right people. It’s a matter of preventing all the WRONG people. And preventing the wrong people is something that we can do. Prosecute the bad, and only the good remain. Determine the false, and only true remains. Fragility is easy to exploit into a cascade. It was one thing to promise democracy when there was no empirical evidence. But the evidence is in. It’s genocidal. Mostly because women lacked the experience and accountability for the votes that they cast. We got what the majority of women and the minority of men desired: largely by destroying the family and expanding immigration, and transferring reproduction from the middle to the lower classes through aggressive taxation. The problem for creating momentum in any revolution is that people need an alternative institutional framework to accept, if not advocate, that will solve present problems and provide them with a means of understanding how the future might unfold. So, we need something for them to demand. Just as the founding fathers did. Just as all enlightenment movements did. And it must take a moral high ground. After that, there are 3 hours of energy, 3 days of water, 6 days of food in the channel, and an economy that cannot tolerate shocks. Long gone are the days where the multitudes must take to the streets with pitchforks. A small number of men with a few pages of instructions can do far more damage than the communist insurgents did. A sustained but short period of unpredictability and a positive set of demands will collapse the channels, and the government with it. All governance is an illusion created by the accumulated momentum of common interests. It is a fragile illusion easily dispelled, which is why governors are so paranoid about the slightest threat. It’s easy, with just a few thousand. With 1% it’s all but certain. We have more than 1% if we give them actionable direction. (Look at the middle east.)
  • Q&A: Revolution. Will it Result in the ‘Right’ People?

    (worth repeating)QUESTION:

    —“How do we demand a return to an Aristocracy of the right people? This is a steep hill we’re climbing.”—

    ANSWER: [T]he right people are impossible to know. And even such, it’s not a matter of choosing the right people. It’s a matter of preventing all the WRONG people. And preventing the wrong people is something that we can do. Prosecute the bad, and only the good remain. Determine the false, and only true remains. Fragility is easy to exploit into a cascade. It was one thing to promise democracy when there was no empirical evidence. But the evidence is in. It’s genocidal. Mostly because women lacked the experience and accountability for the votes that they cast. We got what the majority of women and the minority of men desired: largely by destroying the family and expanding immigration, and transferring reproduction from the middle to the lower classes through aggressive taxation. The problem for creating momentum in any revolution is that people need an alternative institutional framework to accept, if not advocate, that will solve present problems and provide them with a means of understanding how the future might unfold. So, we need something for them to demand. Just as the founding fathers did. Just as all enlightenment movements did. And it must take a moral high ground. After that, there are 3 hours of energy, 3 days of water, 6 days of food in the channel, and an economy that cannot tolerate shocks. Long gone are the days where the multitudes must take to the streets with pitchforks. A small number of men with a few pages of instructions can do far more damage than the communist insurgents did. A sustained but short period of unpredictability and a positive set of demands will collapse the channels, and the government with it. All governance is an illusion created by the accumulated momentum of common interests. It is a fragile illusion easily dispelled, which is why governors are so paranoid about the slightest threat. It’s easy, with just a few thousand. With 1% it’s all but certain. We have more than 1% if we give them actionable direction. (Look at the middle east.)