PISSING ON THE FIRE HYDRANT – MARKING YOUR TERRITORY
Russia says they ‘own’ Hungary, Bulgarian, and Ukraine.
–“”We believe that the rights of Russians, Hungarians, Bulgarians, actually as Ukrainians, must be secured and protected,” — says Lavrov in London after the talks with the US Secretary of State John Kerry.”–
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-14 21:20:00 UTC
THE BROKEN PROMISES OF THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC FALLACY
–“(AP) — Broken promises of help from the West. A tragic history of Russian invasion that goes back centuries. A painful awareness that conflicts in this volatile region are contagious. These are the factors that make nations across Eastern Europe watch events in Ukraine “–
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-14 18:34:00 UTC
Didn’t Occur to me that if the Russians take Crimea, the Chinese will then take Taiwan. Just like it didn’t occur to me that the Russian elite look at china as a model government.
What are we supposed to learn? The social democratic model doesn’t work no matter what way we look at it? Right? I mean. That’s the lesson isn’t it?
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-14 14:41:00 UTC
US STATE DEPARTMENT CONTACT (EMBASSY)
“…. if you have an opportunity to leave Ukraine you should do it. …”
I’m not ‘permitted’ to say what else I know from other channels (which are silver bullets that I don’t use). But the net is, that they have no idea whats going to happen after tomorrow.
“….. could be a war, or it could be much better than it is right now…”
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-14 11:06:00 UTC
http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/MOVING THE NEEDLE
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-14 05:31:00 UTC
WHAT MORAL RULES DO YOU USE IN GLOBAL STRATEGY?
(anti-russian pro-conflict warning) (i warned you)
I don’t understand why Crimea can’t be an independent country. I view voluntary secession as an inviolable human right of free association. I don’t understand why Crimea, which has been a Russian asset for a very long time, cannot choose to join Russia. I completely understand why Russia’s internal security requires the Crimean warm water ports.
But that is very different from taking it by force. Especially when it could have been leased or purchased outright, and a referendum constructed that would easily have been possible by merely negotiating a discount on gas with Ukraine.
If Russia cannot be a good world citizen, the the only alternative, is to yet again, militarily punish Russia; and to keep punishing Russia economically and politically every few generations until it learns to be a good world citizen. Fascination with the quality of life of one’s citizens, stable borders, and plentiful trade: period. Not restoration of the Caliphate or the Soviet Empire. The world needs far more smaller states not bigger ones, whose only value is the ability to conduct of war.
We have spent five-hundred years of blood and treasure incompetently but steadily dragging humanity out of ignorance and poverty. And we have spent spent the past twenty years building commercial ties and dependence the post-soviet sphere and the west, in the hope of bringing Russia into the modern word of prosperity.
Because a militaristic and totalitarian Russia is intolerable to the west.
Because while a German-Russian partnership, where both countries Suppress corruption, share resources and skills, is an asset to both the world and the west, and allows the american empire to contract – – while a Europe held hostage by a totalitarian Russia is a strategic impossibility for both america
The only way to prevent energy being used as a weapon is to conquer or colonize the source of the energy.
So, if Russia has given up on the respect for boundaries, maybe the west should give up on respect for boundaries, and colonize Moscow and Russian resources.
Just drive them into poverty yet again, collapse their economy. And acknowledge that Russia is not ready willing and able to enter the modern world on its own.
And it’s self defense to leave that kind of government in your back yard.
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-13 15:06:00 UTC
THE IMMORALITY OF PACIFIST LIBERTARIANISM
Pacifist (peasant and merchant) libertarianism is analogous to begging at the foot of the state, trying to get PERMISSION to enjoy some liberty.
Aristocratic Egalitarian Libertarianism actively denies others the possibility of infringing upon liberty by the constant threat of violence.
Or put in Propertarian terms, whining, whimpering, pleading, chastising and justifying are just excuses to do nothing to advance liberty and feel good about it, or relying upon ‘faith’ while waiting to get liberty at a discount, rather than pay the high cost of denying others access to your property. It’s just christian ‘waiting for the savior’ in secular language.
We aren’t doing anything. The only reason it looks like we’ve moved the needle at all, is because everyone else is failing so badly – both the Cathedral and the Enlightenment are collapsing under the weight of democracy.
The source of liberty is the organized application of violence by every living should that desires it. And liberty is only earned by those willing to use violence to deny others the ability to infringe upon our liberty.
The cause of moral intuition is the prohibition on free riding: cheating, and trying to get something at a discount at other’s expense.
Pacifist libertarianism IS IMMORAL by that standard.
For millennia one gained property rights by fighting for them or committing to fight for them. That is the only means of possessing property rights – by obtaining them in exchange from others who are willing to fight for them.
Everyone else is a free-rider. If they possess liberty. It is only because those willing to use violence to deny others access to property give it to them.
That is a DESCRIPTIVE ethic. Rather than all the Continental nonsense that libertarians rely upon by taking cues from the obscurantism of the Marxists.
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-13 10:05:00 UTC
SOME OF THE “FIRST PROBLEMS” OF PHILOSOPHY
1) THE FIRST PROBLEM OF PHILOSOPHY
“Why do we not commit suicide?”
2) THE FIRST PROBLEM OF POLITICS
“Why should I not kill you and take your stuff?”
3) THE FIRST PROBLEM OF COOPERATION
“How can we prevent free riding?”
4) THE FIRST PROBLEM OF DIVISION OF LABOR
“How do we determine who controls which resource?”
5) THE FIRST PROBLEM OF FAMILY STRUCTURE
“How do we organize reproduction, child rearing and inheritance in the current means of production?”
6) THE FIRST PROBLEM OF INTER-FAMILIAL COOPERATION (community)
“Why should a woman be free to bear children that they cannot support, and place the burden for them upon others without their consent?”
7) THE FIRST PROBLEM OF INTER-COMMUNITY COOPERATION (economy)
“what is are the universal moral rules we must observe to successfully cooperate with all other groups?”
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-13 09:30:00 UTC
THE FIRST QUESTION OF POLITICS: TERNARY ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN ETHICS vs BINARY GHETTO ETHICS
The first question of politics (cooperation) is why don’t I kill you and take your stuff? If we cooperate for mutual gain then I agree not to kill you and take your stuff.
If you want to conduct a positive trade with me I will not kill you and take your stuff.
If you try to blackmail me or cheat me or my friends and allies, then I will kill you and take your stuff.
It is only rational not to kill you and take your stuff if you engage in mutually beneficial exchange.
You have made the error of Argumentation which is that because one must surrender violence to conduct a cooperative argument, that you assume the choice for participants is between cooperation and non cooperation, rather than to assume that the choice is between cooperation, non cooperation, and violence.
The logic of cooperation is ternary, not binary.
It is only binary when I’m in the ghetto and the monarchy leaves us alone as long as we don’t engage in violence.
The monarchy cannot trust either of us to tell the truth, so the monarchy limits its definition of crime to violence, while tolerating unethical and immoral behavior.
But that is not a voluntary society. That is a ghetto within a monarchy. Just like Crusoe’s island is a ghetto bounded by the violence of the sea.
But aristocracy, which possesses a WEALTH OF VIOLENCE is always in the proposition that voluntary exchange must be more rewarding than the application of violence, and that subjecting one’s self to criminal, immoral and unethical and conspiratorial is simply, always, and everywhere, unnecessary.
So for the weak, the choice is between cooperation and non-cooperation, the choice for the aristocracy is between cooperation, non-cooperation, and violence – whichever is more rewarding.
Rothbardians are engaged in a complex, obscurantist logical fallacy. Rothbardian anarcho capitalist ethics are PLAGUED with logical fallacies.
It is, like Marxism, a rich and varied set of logical fallacies. But logical fallacies none the less.
We don’t need the state. However, property rights as defined OR the NAP, are insufficient for the rational adoption of a voluntary society governed only by the rule of law, under the common law.
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-12 11:48:00 UTC
Russia takes the Chinese Route to Authoritarian Capitalism?
Interesting. So we stopped funding Russian analysts and we missed it? Putin and his inner circle are adopting the Chinese model? He’s told the leading billionaires that any wealth that they have outside of Russia is lost? That two years ago he planned this and told them to bring it home? That he planned this invasion of Ukraine last summer, including the conquest of the east?
Conquest of Crimea almost complete. Given the level of corruption of the Russian regions of Ukraine, the leadership there knows that they’ll go to jail under a modernized Ukraine, so they’re going to work to support Russian conquest.
I guess that the deal is done? Ukraine will be split and armed, replacing Germany as the battlefield between east and west?
Fascinating times. Kind of ruins the joy of experiencing the revolution here.
Nukes are your only chance at sovereignty.
Everyone needs nukes. Thats the lesson.
Thats the lesson that NKorea and Pakistan suggested, Iran has adopted and Ukraine proved.
Welcome to the end of nuclear non-proliferation.
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-11 16:29:00 UTC