Monopolistic definitions of man, lead to monopoly governments, economies, and polities. Classes = Institution Diversity
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-01 15:49:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/815585806123417600
Reply addressees: @Madisox
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/815584737507102721
IN REPLY TO:
@Madisox
@curtdoolittle https://t.co/S14XPUUyrZ
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/815584737507102721
Addressing Gender/Class/Tribe/Race distributions as need for different institutions avoids racist criticism. @Madisox #NewRight alt-right
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-01 12:02:00 UTC
Classes: Genetic ->Reproductive ->Social ->Economic ->Political.
Genders, Classes, Tribes, and Races exist.
Govern with humans that EXIST.
Monopolistic definitions of man, lead to monopoly governments, economies, and polities – whereas Classes = Institution Diversity that suits the needs of groups: CLASSES.
Lying about the nature of man in order to justify your preferred social and political order is just another form of using the state’s violence for the purpose of obtaining and holding the power of one class over those other classes.
If we govern (limit one another) with the people we actually have, using the methods that each of those people actually need, without imposing costs upon one another, that will result in a market for polities (groups), institutions (processes), and government (commons) that suit each of us.
Monopolies are bad in every context. Especially in politics.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-01 11:03:00 UTC
—“Spectrum: absolute nuclear family (ANF) > nuclear family > extended family > familialism > tribalism.
As we move from the left side of the spectrum to the right, we see increasing protection of family members from economic pressure which is dysgenic because it affords the less productive members access to reproduction.
The ANF places responsibility for the funding of reproduction at the most individual level, which then allows for selection pressures to act at a more fine granularity to select for the most adapted (eugenic).
Over time, the eugenic selection effects (accrued genetic capital) pay off as the society becomes smarter, healthier and more cooperative, which creates a network effect which causes massive increase in economic velocity.”— William Butchman
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-31 10:25:00 UTC
—“Is market government just a foreign concept to ancaps or do they just think every government is inherently an extra-market/bureaucratic entity?”—
1) ancap = social reject = avoider-of-commons, and market government exists for the purposes of making commons.
2) ancap term ‘government’ is unclear, just as ancap term ‘state’ is unclear, just as the demarcation between law (discovered), regulation (theorized), and legislation (command) is unclear.
3) Ancaps practice a great deal of conflation so that they cannot comprehend market government as consisting in an institutional (constitutional) market for the production of voluntary commons under rule of natural law. And even if they could comprehend it, they couldn’t comprehend a market for dissent (a prohibition on contracts that violate law) versus assent (majority rule).
4) So their ‘imprecise language’ lets them think they know what they’re talking about – when they don’t.
MARKET GOVT
1) sovereignty
2) rule of natural law
3) distribution of proceeds (revenues) from the market (polity) by some method or other (equal, or by contribution, etc).
4) contracts not legislation.
5) all contracts assent (pass) unless they do not survive dissent (challenge under natural law) including requirement for strict construction.
In other words the end of monopoly determination of commons.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-30 11:59:00 UTC
Chris, Great unbiased Venturebeat article on Apple. Thank you. Have a few thoughts to share (and curious if you have any feedback). As someone intimately familiar with the Post-Bill-Gates internal consequences at Microsoft, I see all the same behaviors at Apple, and I suspect we will see the same ‘lost decade’ of results. The difference is, Apple does not benefit from the network effect of entrenched products as did Microsoft, and Apple’s fall will be more rapid and their time to adapt much shorter. Over the past six years I’ve suggested that Apple will continue to bet on the consumer and fail – because (a)the accumulated media of the past century is now widely distributed, and (b) the touch-screen revolution that propelled Apple’s iPhone revenues is widely distributed, and (c) everyone in the world is researching the verbal-AI revolution since they’re aware that’s the next interface hurdle, and (d) the Bauhaus design ethic is firmly entrenched worldwide. And so there are no ‘failures of engineering and design’ among device manufacturers that Apple can compensate for, and use to obtain large consumer market share as both Apple and Microsoft had done during their evolutions. We tend to think of Apple and Microsoft as innovators, but they were merely consumer commoditizers of existing technologies during an era of pent up demand. This condition no longer exists in the world – just the opposite. Industrial design for consumer users has been adopted everywhere in the mainstream. So, as far as I can see, Apple has no choice of means of maintaining share price other than pivoting to business and industry, and displacing Microsoft – who, for cultural reasons, is the software equivalent of IBM/DEC/WANG in the industrial space, and Motorola/Nokia in the mobile phone space. Yet as (a) the merger of iOS and Mac OS groups (another mistake we saw Microsoft make in the pursuit of false operating system efficiencies) and as (b) the abandonment of the power-user market with the new ‘Mac Air’ rebranded as ‘Mac Pro’ and the termination of the mac pro line (c) the abandonment of network/backup devices (d) the continuous abandonment of the professional market (video editing), (e) the abandonment of the ‘maintainable’ mac server hardware (f) the abandonment of the mac server software community (g) the failure of Apple to produce competitive cloud services — all of which indicate Apple is either gambling on an other miracle-research-and-development effort (historically a terrible tragedy), Now, perhaps I’ve been studying business and industry transformation for too many decades, but it would seem far more prudent to maintain a portfolio and CREATE a network effect as a resistance to unpredictable innovation by a wildcard competitor, and to continue the trend of making industrial engineering innovations usable by consumers and power users, than it would be to continue to put all one’s eggs in a consumer basket when consumers are fickle and industry allows you to create an entrenched revenue stream. Microsoft repeatedly pursued false efficiency instead of creating separate units that pursued the interests of different users. And when they did so they still caused havoc: attempting to move users to the xbox platform instead of preserving the ‘elite’ gamer on the PC and the ‘casual’ gamer on the xbox. There are no efficiencies. There are only lost opportunities. Microsoft also abandoned their evangelists, abandoned their dominance as an application platform, and they are currently in the process of abandoning the .net stack that they tried to use to create a walled garden. And on a broader horizon, given the influence the ‘new age’ companies have on the stock market and as a consequence the economy (FB/email-fax, Google/YellowPages, Apple/AT&T-Communications) we are living in the most fragile economy since the end of the roaring twenties. Why? Because quite a few of us know how to displace Facebook, google, apple and Microsoft. And of those only Microsoft retains a durable network effect. And the only company currently capable of eroding the Microsoft network effect is Apple – because their products are simply better in every regard. The only think preventing Apple from displacing Microsoft’s revenues is the acquisition of and incorporation of a virtualization product and thereby achieving for Apple with Microsoft achieved because of IBM/DEC. THE SKYSCRAPER THEORY OF ECONOMICS Just as a bit of humor: there is a correlation between the launch of a tallest building and a market crash. Meaning that any economic conditions allowing for a new tallest building are indicators of an economy that will bust. I recognize the same effect in Apple’s spaceship office. The fact that anyone would do that, is an indicator of a bubble that will bust. APPLE REDIRECTION I suppose that the function of those of us who are students and teachers of business cycles can ‘help’ Apple by writing about it quite a bit. And pushing ideas into the public discourse that are culturally suppressed internally. But I suspect that the damage that will be done to Apple by the first five years post-Steve will be so significant that (like Microsoft) it may not be possible to correct it. Company cultures function analogously to an instruction set, and companies can only calculate what instructions are culturally available. Apple (like google and FB) have cultures (as did MSFT) that enshrine values that gave rise to them and were mythical at the time – and are now simply false. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine. obrien@venturebeat.com http://venturebeat.com/…/apple-survived-a-horrible-2016-an…/
Chris, Great unbiased Venturebeat article on Apple. Thank you. Have a few thoughts to share (and curious if you have any feedback). As someone intimately familiar with the Post-Bill-Gates internal consequences at Microsoft, I see all the same behaviors at Apple, and I suspect we will see the same ‘lost decade’ of results. The difference is, Apple does not benefit from the network effect of entrenched products as did Microsoft, and Apple’s fall will be more rapid and their time to adapt much shorter. Over the past six years I’ve suggested that Apple will continue to bet on the consumer and fail – because (a)the accumulated media of the past century is now widely distributed, and (b) the touch-screen revolution that propelled Apple’s iPhone revenues is widely distributed, and (c) everyone in the world is researching the verbal-AI revolution since they’re aware that’s the next interface hurdle, and (d) the Bauhaus design ethic is firmly entrenched worldwide. And so there are no ‘failures of engineering and design’ among device manufacturers that Apple can compensate for, and use to obtain large consumer market share as both Apple and Microsoft had done during their evolutions. We tend to think of Apple and Microsoft as innovators, but they were merely consumer commoditizers of existing technologies during an era of pent up demand. This condition no longer exists in the world – just the opposite. Industrial design for consumer users has been adopted everywhere in the mainstream. So, as far as I can see, Apple has no choice of means of maintaining share price other than pivoting to business and industry, and displacing Microsoft – who, for cultural reasons, is the software equivalent of IBM/DEC/WANG in the industrial space, and Motorola/Nokia in the mobile phone space. Yet as (a) the merger of iOS and Mac OS groups (another mistake we saw Microsoft make in the pursuit of false operating system efficiencies) and as (b) the abandonment of the power-user market with the new ‘Mac Air’ rebranded as ‘Mac Pro’ and the termination of the mac pro line (c) the abandonment of network/backup devices (d) the continuous abandonment of the professional market (video editing), (e) the abandonment of the ‘maintainable’ mac server hardware (f) the abandonment of the mac server software community (g) the failure of Apple to produce competitive cloud services — all of which indicate Apple is either gambling on an other miracle-research-and-development effort (historically a terrible tragedy), Now, perhaps I’ve been studying business and industry transformation for too many decades, but it would seem far more prudent to maintain a portfolio and CREATE a network effect as a resistance to unpredictable innovation by a wildcard competitor, and to continue the trend of making industrial engineering innovations usable by consumers and power users, than it would be to continue to put all one’s eggs in a consumer basket when consumers are fickle and industry allows you to create an entrenched revenue stream. Microsoft repeatedly pursued false efficiency instead of creating separate units that pursued the interests of different users. And when they did so they still caused havoc: attempting to move users to the xbox platform instead of preserving the ‘elite’ gamer on the PC and the ‘casual’ gamer on the xbox. There are no efficiencies. There are only lost opportunities. Microsoft also abandoned their evangelists, abandoned their dominance as an application platform, and they are currently in the process of abandoning the .net stack that they tried to use to create a walled garden. And on a broader horizon, given the influence the ‘new age’ companies have on the stock market and as a consequence the economy (FB/email-fax, Google/YellowPages, Apple/AT&T-Communications) we are living in the most fragile economy since the end of the roaring twenties. Why? Because quite a few of us know how to displace Facebook, google, apple and Microsoft. And of those only Microsoft retains a durable network effect. And the only company currently capable of eroding the Microsoft network effect is Apple – because their products are simply better in every regard. The only think preventing Apple from displacing Microsoft’s revenues is the acquisition of and incorporation of a virtualization product and thereby achieving for Apple with Microsoft achieved because of IBM/DEC. THE SKYSCRAPER THEORY OF ECONOMICS Just as a bit of humor: there is a correlation between the launch of a tallest building and a market crash. Meaning that any economic conditions allowing for a new tallest building are indicators of an economy that will bust. I recognize the same effect in Apple’s spaceship office. The fact that anyone would do that, is an indicator of a bubble that will bust. APPLE REDIRECTION I suppose that the function of those of us who are students and teachers of business cycles can ‘help’ Apple by writing about it quite a bit. And pushing ideas into the public discourse that are culturally suppressed internally. But I suspect that the damage that will be done to Apple by the first five years post-Steve will be so significant that (like Microsoft) it may not be possible to correct it. Company cultures function analogously to an instruction set, and companies can only calculate what instructions are culturally available. Apple (like google and FB) have cultures (as did MSFT) that enshrine values that gave rise to them and were mythical at the time – and are now simply false. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine. obrien@venturebeat.com http://venturebeat.com/…/apple-survived-a-horrible-2016-an…/
All other civilizations conflate in order to escape competition. Ours is the only civilization that institutionalizes competition by the prevention of conflation.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-28 14:26:00 UTC
Chris,
Great unbiased Venturebeat article on Apple. Thank you.
Have a few thoughts to share (and curious if you have any feedback).
As someone intimately familiar with the Post-Bill-Gates internal consequences at Microsoft, I see all the same behaviors at Apple, and I suspect we will see the same ‘lost decade’ of results. The difference is, Apple does not benefit from the network effect of entrenched products as did Microsoft, and Apple’s fall will be more rapid and their time to adapt much shorter.
Over the past six years I’ve suggested that Apple will continue to bet on the consumer and fail – because (a)the accumulated media of the past century is now widely distributed, and (b) the touch-screen revolution that propelled Apple’s iPhone revenues is widely distributed, and (c) everyone in the world is researching the verbal-AI revolution since they’re aware that’s the next interface hurdle, and (d) the Bauhaus design ethic is firmly entrenched worldwide.
And so there are no ‘failures of engineering and design’ among device manufacturers that Apple can compensate for, and use to obtain large consumer market share as both Apple and Microsoft had done during their evolutions. We tend to think of Apple and Microsoft as innovators, but they were merely consumer commoditizers of existing technologies during an era of pent up demand. This condition no longer exists in the world – just the opposite. Industrial design for consumer users has been adopted everywhere in the mainstream.
So, as far as I can see, Apple has no choice of means of maintaining share price other than pivoting to business and industry, and displacing Microsoft – who, for cultural reasons, is the software equivalent of IBM/DEC/WANG in the industrial space, and Motorola/Nokia in the mobile phone space.
Yet as (a) the merger of iOS and Mac OS groups (another mistake we saw Microsoft make in the pursuit of false operating system efficiencies) and as (b) the abandonment of the power-user market with the new ‘Mac Air’ rebranded as ‘Mac Pro’ and the termination of the mac pro line (c) the abandonment of network/backup devices (d) the continuous abandonment of the professional market (video editing), (e) the abandonment of the ‘maintainable’ mac server hardware (f) the abandonment of the mac server software community (g) the failure of Apple to produce competitive cloud services — all of which indicate Apple is either gambling on an other miracle-research-and-development effort (historically a terrible tragedy),
Now, perhaps I’ve been studying business and industry transformation for too many decades, but it would seem far more prudent to maintain a portfolio and CREATE a network effect as a resistance to unpredictable innovation by a wildcard competitor, and to continue the trend of making industrial engineering innovations usable by consumers and power users, than it would be to continue to put all one’s eggs in a consumer basket when consumers are fickle and industry allows you to create an entrenched revenue stream.
Microsoft repeatedly pursued false efficiency instead of creating separate units that pursued the interests of different users. And when they did so they still caused havoc: attempting to move users to the xbox platform instead of preserving the ‘elite’ gamer on the PC and the ‘casual’ gamer on the xbox. There are no efficiencies. There are only lost opportunities.
Microsoft also abandoned their evangelists, abandoned their dominance as an application platform, and they are currently in the process of abandoning the .net stack that they tried to use to create a walled garden.
And on a broader horizon, given the influence the ‘new age’ companies have on the stock market and as a consequence the economy (FB/email-fax, Google/YellowPages, Apple/AT&T-Communications) we are living in the most fragile economy since the end of the roaring twenties. Why? Because quite a few of us know how to displace Facebook, google, apple and Microsoft. And of those only Microsoft retains a durable network effect. And the only company currently capable of eroding the Microsoft network effect is Apple – because their products are simply better in every regard. The only think preventing Apple from displacing Microsoft’s revenues is the acquisition of and incorporation of a virtualization product and thereby achieving for Apple with Microsoft achieved because of IBM/DEC.
THE SKYSCRAPER THEORY OF ECONOMICS
Just as a bit of humor: there is a correlation between the launch of a tallest building and a market crash. Meaning that any economic conditions allowing for a new tallest building are indicators of an economy that will bust.
I recognize the same effect in Apple’s spaceship office. The fact that anyone would do that, is an indicator of a bubble that will bust.
APPLE REDIRECTION
I suppose that the function of those of us who are students and teachers of business cycles can ‘help’ Apple by writing about it quite a bit. And pushing ideas into the public discourse that are culturally suppressed internally.
But I suspect that the damage that will be done to Apple by the first five years post-Steve will be so significant that (like Microsoft) it may not be possible to correct it.
Company cultures function analogously to an instruction set, and companies can only calculate what instructions are culturally available. Apple (like google and FB) have cultures (as did MSFT) that enshrine values that gave rise to them and were mythical at the time – and are now simply false.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
obrien@venturebeat.com
http://venturebeat.com/2016/12/28/apple-survived-a-horrible-2016-and-the-end-of-its-golden-age-now-what/
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-28 10:54:00 UTC
( Ely Harman December 20 at 11:45pm · ) Tell me where I’m wrong. Mixed male/female institutions and spaces of any size under feminism will tend to end up female dominated, or at least dominated by feminine sensibilities, if not female persons. Why? Because in any conflict between a man and a woman the woman will always have recourse to the feminine means of coercion (rallying, shaming, gossip, reputational agression.) But the first rule of feminism is that the masculine means of coercion (violence) are illegitimate, and doubly illegitimate when used, by a man, against a woman. So, if a woman gets in my face about something, anything, and begins to resort to feminine coercion. There are only 4 ways I can respond. 1) Submit. Give her what she demands. 2) Disassociate. Leave. Cut off the interaction. 3) Retaliate in kind, with feminine coercion. 4) Resort to Violence. Well, we already said 4 is ruled out. 1) Results in female domination. 2) Cedes the territory to females. 3) Is not seen as honorable behavior for men. But even if men made the adjustment and began systematically employing feminine coercion, and successfully, then feminine sensibilities prevail (through them.) The second rule of feminism is there are no exclusively male or masculine spaces or institutions. These are to be identified and subjected to feminine coercion until they are opened up to integration. What about smaller institutions, like a household? Well, a man may preserve some sovereignty within a household if he can offer benefits and therefore potentially withold them, in part, or by disassociating entirely. If the benefits are compelling enough, and their potential loss compelling enough, that can uphold certain boundaries. But as institutions are feminized and select for and promote women and effeminate men, men must progressively either accept subordinate roles and statuses within those institutions, leave, or become effeminate. And that diminishes men’s abilities to produce and to bring home benefits with which to bargain for sovereignty even in their home life. And as the relative wealth and status of men declines in society and within institutions, so must their relative status and sovereignty at home. The process of feminization must tend to proceed, therefore, until it encounters and is reversed either by violent revolt or violent conquest. Patriarchy and matriarchy are the only options, long-term. There is no stable middle ground. Which direction we are headed depends largely on whether or not, and how much, men are using violence (including against women.) But even an established matriarchy is unstable because it cannot defend itself against an external patriarchy, (or a sufficiently broad based revolt) while a patriarchy need not allow itself to be threatened by any matriarchy.