ORGANIC EUGENICS NOT INDUSTRIAL
You cannot force evolution on a people. you can merely build it into the incentives, and let it occur naturally. This requires only the gradual limiting of the underclass rates of reproduction until the middle class is large enough to carry the body of the polity, and the upper classes able to lead the polity without reliance upon corruption. We must GROW our people. They are not machines.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-06 12:21:00 UTC
https://usa.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/if-this-is-a-trade-war-the-united-states-will-win/https://usa.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/if-this-is-a-trade-war-the-united-states-will-win/EXACTLY.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-06 11:32:00 UTC
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-06 11:32:00 UTC
CHINA’S LONG TERM GOAL IS TO RESTORE THEIR OLD GOAL (RENTS)
—“China’s long-term goal in this will be very familiar to anyone who has studied the history of trade, war, and imperialism. Beijing would like to build up its own industrial power and hollow out that of the United States, its chief long-run strategic rival. Under imperialism, the metropole liked to foster and protect industry at home and keep colonies dependent by depriving them of manufacturing and getting them to import finished goods rather than creating them (let alone exporting them). Leverage belongs to the manufacturers. China has no need to start a war with the United States. One superpower can replace another by a gradual process of economic eclipse and induced de-industrialization. Let Americans think that their “service economy” will sustain itself. It won’t: a nation without a strong manufacturing base is as vulnerable as a nation that cannot feed itself or supply its own vital natural resources. “—
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-06 11:30:00 UTC
COSTS OF EUGENIC STRATEGIES VS TIME
1) Hard Eugenics = Culling/Sterilization: Military/Political : Cheap but Immediate, with no risk.
2) Soft Eugenics = Reproductive limitation: Institutional: Neutral Cost and Generational – with little risk.
3) Technological Eugenics = Technological transformation : expensive and very slow, with unknown risk.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-06 11:11:00 UTC
TAXES AND REPRODUCTION
(probably an important set of ideas you need to grasp)
The fact that we tax tradesmen and members of bureaucracies at the same rate is counter-progressive (regressive).
If you’re going to tax progressively (effectively a sales tax on market participation), employment in or as Laborers, Tradesmen, Professionals, Small Medium Businesses, Industries, Government should be taxed progressively.
However the single most detrimental policies have been:
(a) inter temporal redistribution and risk propagation (which is incalculable) rather than the Singapore/Texas model of forced savings and redistribution into personal health and retirement accounts (which is calculable – and reinvest-able).
(b) The redistribution of middle class reproduction to the underclasses due to (i) inability to self segregate, thereby forcing families to ‘buy their way’ into expensive neighborhoods and schools at the cost of increased female labor, and decreased rates of reproduction. (b) the taxation and burning of reproduction by the middle class to redistribute reproduction to the lower classes (that should either be sterilized or limited to one child.)
Because ‘white people’ can live extremely well in high trust high quality well maintained commons by purely voluntary labor, it is possible for ‘whites’ to spend very little on redistribution and commons production, and also work less if they can isolate themselves from less advanced (domesticated) groups. There is zero reason, other than interest rates on home and auto, and the need to buy overpriced housing in overpriced neighborhoods, for more than 10% overhead of GDP. White westerners with small arms, required service, some artillery and nuclear weapons can build extremely low cost per capita high quality commons simply because IT IS IN OUR NATURE. Heterogeneity (diversity) has destroyed western civilization. We let pandora out of her box when we allowed women to vote without first limiting the damage that they could do once loosed in the polity by compensating for their dysgenic impulses. Civilization occured because of paternalism: the use of competition and capital to limit the reproductive damage done by women’s intuitions.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-06 10:17:00 UTC
Let me help you both:
1) We produce the social orders we can afford to produce.
2) We have the values we can afford to have in that social order.
3) We have the social orders and values that our demographics allow us to have.
It’s physics and economics.
Don’t congratulate yourself on circumstance.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-04 21:12:00 UTC
OUR INEQUALITY REQUIRES JURIDICAL EQUALITY
We are unequal by every possible measure, but to preserve the incentive to, and benefits of, cooperation, the law must adjudicate our interests equally. For this reason the law must always and everywhere treat our interests as equal and our abilities and value to one another unequally.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-03 10:44:00 UTC
7) So in this sense my approach is broader than Coase, and where Coase incorrectly suggests cooperation reinforces seeking equilibrium, instead cooperation seeks convergence, competition seeks efficiency, and opportunity seeks disequilibrium, with shocks as discovery of limits.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-01 16:17:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002585052159627264
Reply addressees: @MartialSociety
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002367912512970752
IN REPLY TO:
@MartialSociety
@curtdoolittle I searched your site & didn’t find anything related. Most discussions of externalities are at least tangentially prefaced with a description of the Coase theorem & its limitations. I’m interested in how you (or another propertarian) would approach the problem.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002367912512970752
3) Coase’s theorem can be stated the same way: the differential rents (different allocations of property rights) are suppressed by competition across variable property allocations (normative property, and formal property rights) by international trade. …
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-01 16:11:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002583435062464512
Reply addressees: @MartialSociety
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002367912512970752
IN REPLY TO:
@MartialSociety
@curtdoolittle I searched your site & didn’t find anything related. Most discussions of externalities are at least tangentially prefaced with a description of the Coase theorem & its limitations. I’m interested in how you (or another propertarian) would approach the problem.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002367912512970752