COMPLAINT IS THE LANGUAGE OF IMBECILES Anyone can complain. Anyone can criticize. How many people can explain the incentives that cause people to act in a way that they do, that you disagree with? Complaints about people. Complaints about events. complaints about society, complaints about civilization. complaints about man. Complaints are merely statements of incompetence. Competence is demonstrated by an explanation of the incentives that produce behaviors, and the institutional methods by which counter-incentives can be created that will produce preferred behaviors. And high competence is demonstrated by explanation of a possible method of doing so.
Theme: Incentives
-
What Kind of Anti-Market are You? (You’re some kind, I promise)
WHAT KIND OF ANTI-MARKET ARE YOU? What kind of anti-market activity do you prefer? – Fascism: anti-market for politics, commons, norms, and limited market for goods, services, and information – Libertarianism: anti-market for commons, politics, but market for norms, goods, services, information. – Libertinism: anti-market for norms,politics, but market for goods, services and information. – Classical Liberalism: markets for good services and information, with limited-market for commons. – Aristocracy: markets for everything except law and politics. – Democratic socialism: minimum markets for politics, commons, and private property. – Socialism: anti market for goods, services, and information – Communism: anti market for politics, commons, norms, goods, services, and information. CONSERVATIVE (MALE) Social Conservatives limit the market for goods, services, information, norms, commons, politics, to that which is EVIDENTIARY, and imposes no costs, requiring individuals develop agency and discipline – however they do so in archaic moral (childlike) language with a touch of economics thrown in. PROGRESSIVE (FEMALE) Social Progressives limit the market for goods services, information, norms, commons, and politics to that which is HYPOTHETICAL, and imposes any possible costs, therefore NOT requiring individuals to develop agency and discipline – however they do so in modern moral and pseudoscientific language. The Frankfurt School modernized female discourse, but we have had no aristocratic school equivalent (until now) to modernize male language. Why? Uncomfortable Truths that ask us to pay the costs of discipline in pursuit of agency is harder (more expensive in the short term) than Comforting Lies that tell us to forgo the costs of discipline and agency in the short term in favor of consumption (indiscipline) in the short term. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine.
-
What Kind of Anti-Market are You? (You’re some kind, I promise)
WHAT KIND OF ANTI-MARKET ARE YOU? What kind of anti-market activity do you prefer? – Fascism: anti-market for politics, commons, norms, and limited market for goods, services, and information – Libertarianism: anti-market for commons, politics, but market for norms, goods, services, information. – Libertinism: anti-market for norms,politics, but market for goods, services and information. – Classical Liberalism: markets for good services and information, with limited-market for commons. – Aristocracy: markets for everything except law and politics. – Democratic socialism: minimum markets for politics, commons, and private property. – Socialism: anti market for goods, services, and information – Communism: anti market for politics, commons, norms, goods, services, and information. CONSERVATIVE (MALE) Social Conservatives limit the market for goods, services, information, norms, commons, politics, to that which is EVIDENTIARY, and imposes no costs, requiring individuals develop agency and discipline – however they do so in archaic moral (childlike) language with a touch of economics thrown in. PROGRESSIVE (FEMALE) Social Progressives limit the market for goods services, information, norms, commons, and politics to that which is HYPOTHETICAL, and imposes any possible costs, therefore NOT requiring individuals to develop agency and discipline – however they do so in modern moral and pseudoscientific language. The Frankfurt School modernized female discourse, but we have had no aristocratic school equivalent (until now) to modernize male language. Why? Uncomfortable Truths that ask us to pay the costs of discipline in pursuit of agency is harder (more expensive in the short term) than Comforting Lies that tell us to forgo the costs of discipline and agency in the short term in favor of consumption (indiscipline) in the short term. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine.
-
THINK ABOUT THIS SERIES OF POLITICAL QUESTIONS 1) Why don’t I fight with you? 2)
THINK ABOUT THIS SERIES OF POLITICAL QUESTIONS
1) Why don’t I fight with you?
2) Why don’t I steal from you?
3) Why don’t I trade with you?
4) Why don’t I finance with you?
5) Why don’t I (exchange-or-create norms) with you?
6) Why don’t I create laws (government) with you?
7) Why don’t I cohabitate with you?
8) Why don’t I reproduce with you?
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-17 08:57:00 UTC
-
Trash talk is great. Teasing is great. Don’t F–k with money
Trash talk is great.
Teasing is great.
Don’t F–k with money.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-15 17:16:00 UTC
-
ROTHBARDIANISM? BUILD A MODEL. GO AHEAD. THINK IT THRU. Build a model. Go ahead.
ROTHBARDIANISM? BUILD A MODEL. GO AHEAD. THINK IT THRU.
Build a model. Go ahead. Try it. You have an opinion. Prove that you’re not a fucking idiot.
What will occur if you could manage to put 1000 rothbadians in a small city on a trade route, tomorrow, what would happen? model it out.
1) it’s easy to find 1000 people to claim they are rothbardians.
2) it’s IMPOSSIBLE to find 1000 people who DEMONSTRATE they are rothbardians.
3) but lets assume for a minute that you can, by luck, get given some land along, say, the new silk road. And you want to set up a rothbardian society. How will you do that?
Here is how your conversation will start: “if some rich person (please mommy or daddy), or some nation (please king, or government) will fund (pay me to play around) a libertarian order (a place where I can keep my meagre earnings outside of a major market) I will (I fantasize) move there (away from all the creature comforts of an empire and a mixed economy) to a place only other losers like me will go to, and feel good until we fail and blame it on other people who don’t come for not having our fortitude (subsidy).
So, why do people come? What will they do? Why will they choose it over the alternatives? how will you create private defense, private, courts, private property, and how will your courts determine what private property, and what contract terms, they will rule in disputes over, and what not?
How will you prevent a nearby city, state, or empire from boycotting you via trade barriers? how will you stop organized crime? How will you stop an influx of people who prey upon nearby cities, states, empires by violence, fraud, conversion, immigration, or fiancialization, or some other scheme?
Why will WOMEN want to move there? or live there?
If you can’t get 100 libertarianis to agree to the scope of non aggression, or the definition of private property, despite 50 years of trying, how will you get them to take real life and property and commercial risks together?
In other words, how can you OPERATIONALIZE rothbardianism? How can you bring it into existence in the real world instead of the fantasy world of silly teenagers and immature young males?
I mean, if you can’t operationalize your ideas, you (anyone) is just saying that youre stupid ignorant and fantasizing over hot girs on porn sites, right? I mean what’s the difference between envisioning yourself with some hot chick, envisioning yourself as some athlete, envisioning yourself as some warrior, envisioning yourself as economicallly successful, envisioning yourself as a leader of men, envisioning yourself as a politician, a king, a despot?
I mean, if you can’t OPERATIONALIZE some objective and demonstrate that it’s at least POSSIBLE then you’re just masturbating to political porn the way young men masturbate to car porn, gun porn, chick porn. RIght?
“I’m a libertarian” is, like “I’m a Marxist” just signaling that you masturbate to political porn unless you can state some strategy for operationally constructing what it is that you desire.
I’m pretty smart and I CANNOT OPERATIONALLY CONSTRUCT A LIBERTARIAN ORDER. I CANNOT locate a candidate geographically, discover any incentives that would produce membership, discover sufficient means of organization to produce the minimum commons (rule of law, defense) discover a means of constructing sufficient comparative advantage that it is possible to attract and maintain population (particularly women). Or discover a means of preventing such a territory from being populated by raiders of nearby or remote markets who then seize power until the external markets prey upon them.
I can’t do it. Tell me how it can be done. Show me people will do so. Show me rational incentives to do so. And the answer is, that you can’t. All yo ucan do is say “i would prefer to wok on the borderland where I exchange limited regulation and taxation for much lower standard of living and much higher opportunity costs – so high that I can only survive by parasitic remote subsistence on remote markets. Why? subsistence farming by an individual is fucking hard and libertarians aren’t exactly the hardest working folk you know.
ROTHBARDIANISM IS NOTHING MORE JEWISH SEPARATIST PARASITISM sold to young ignorant men who have a touch of intelligence, but are of little associative, reproductive, commercial, military, and strategic value, precisely because there is something WRONG (undesirable) about them.
it’s just that this parasitic argument, like marxism before it and christianty before it promises the impossible to people not smart enough to falsify that vast overloading and framing that the propaganda is constructed from.
It sucks to admit you were played. That you’re not that smart. But libertarianism played a pretty good sized group of people. Not enough to make a political movement. But enough to make a cult for misfit boys.
Grow the fuck up.
Men fight. They kill. They destroy. They take. They rule. They profit from their rule. They decrease the cost of profiting from their rule. They profit more so.
If’ you’re a free riding effeminate loser unwilling to fight, kill, destroy, take, rule, profit from taht rule, and build a civilization that constantly decreases the cost of profiting from that rule then you are just a fucking whinny little bitch.
Lift. Run. Explosively Sprint. Read about war. get a weapon. And when the time comes be the first guy to sprint to an opportunity to fight, kill, destroy, take, and rule.
Otherwise youre just a child. Not a man.
Thus Endeth The Lesson.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-15 14:41:00 UTC
-
THE WORLD IS WHAT WE MAKE IT? WELL, WITHIN LIMITS… The world we CAN make is th
THE WORLD IS WHAT WE MAKE IT? WELL, WITHIN LIMITS…
The world we CAN make is that which is possible given the incentives by which it is possible to influence man (gossip, remuneration, violence) given his rationality (rational choice or moral, amoral, or immoral actions in his interest) and the unequal distribution of talents, technology, and resources – and the value of organization in ever increasing numbers to achieve what his rational choice desires.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-14 07:59:00 UTC
-
WHAT KIND OF ANTI-MARKET ARE YOU? What kind of anti-market activity do you prefe
WHAT KIND OF ANTI-MARKET ARE YOU?
What kind of anti-market activity do you prefer?
– Fascism: anti-market for politics, commons, norms, and limited market for goods, services, and information
– Libertarianism: anti-market for commons, politics, but market for norms, goods, services, information.
– Libertinism: anti-market for norms,politics, but market for goods, services and information.
– Classical Liberalism: markets for good services and information, with limited-market for commons.
– Aristocracy: markets for everything except law and politics.
– Democratic socialism: minimum markets for politics, commons, and private property.
– Socialism: anti market for goods, services, and information
– Communism: anti market for politics, commons, norms, goods, services, and information.
CONSERVATIVE (MALE) Social Conservatives limit the market for goods, services, information, norms, commons, politics, to that which is EVIDENTIARY, and imposes no costs, requiring individuals develop agency and discipline – however they do so in archaic moral (childlike) language with a touch of economics thrown in.
PROGRESSIVE (FEMALE) Social Progressives limit the market for goods services, information, norms, commons, and politics to that which is HYPOTHETICAL, and imposes any possible costs, therefore NOT requiring individuals to develop agency and discipline – however they do so in modern moral and pseudoscientific language.
The frankfurt school modernized female discourse, but we have had no aristocratic school equivalent (until now) to modernize male language. Why? Uncomfortable Truths that ask us to pay the costs of discipline in pursuit of agency is harder (more expensive in the short term) than Comforting Lies that tell us to forgo the costs of discipline and agency in the short term in favor of consumption (indiscipline) in the short term.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-14 03:04:00 UTC
-
Public discourse consists of a market for discounts. Thats it. That’s all there
Public discourse consists of a market for discounts. Thats it. That’s all there is.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-13 11:24:00 UTC
-
COMPLAINT IS THE LANGUAGE OF IMBECILES Anyone can complain. Anyone can criticize
COMPLAINT IS THE LANGUAGE OF IMBECILES
Anyone can complain. Anyone can criticize. How many people can explain the incentives that cause people to act in a way that they do, that you disagree with?
Complaints about people. Complaints about events. complaints about society, complaints about civilization. complaints about man.
Complaints are merely statements of incompetence.
Competence is demonstrated by an explanation of the incentives that produce behaviors, and the institutional methods by which counter-incentives can be created that will produce preferred behaviors. And high competence is demonstrated by explanation of a possible method of doing so.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-13 10:01:00 UTC