#Trump Victory is simple. Offer to Split Soros’ assets with Putin. He takes needed cash, we take his other assets and sell them off. Easy.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-07 10:48:00 UTC
Theme: Predation
-
THE INCREMENTAL EXPANSION OF PROPERTY INTERESTS IN CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE INCRE
THE INCREMENTAL EXPANSION OF PROPERTY INTERESTS IN CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE INCREMENTAL SUPPRESSION OF PARASITISM
0 – Possession (self insurance at the limit of one’s abilities)
1 – Property by agreement (self insurance by in-group members)
2 – Property by norm (group insurance – non specialization in insurance by in-group members)
3 – Property by law (institutional insurance – specialization in insurance by in-group members)
4 – Property by military (universal institutional insurance against out-group members)
But since investment in insurance itself is unavoidably a form of property in toto, then the scale of the polity and the method of insurance determines whether the scope of property is limited to agreement, norm, law, and borders.
This is as it is and it cannot be otherwise.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-05 11:04:00 UTC
-
THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR AGGRESSION We can measure the higher and lower morality o
THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR AGGRESSION
We can measure the higher and lower morality of groups by the scope of property that they protect from parasitism – non-reciprocity.
(see “Incremental Suppression”)
it is always moral for a more moral order of people to aggress against a less moral order of people for the purposes of increasing the less moral order’s ability to conduct reciprocally beneficial results.
(“Investment in the production of reciprocity”)
If it is affordable, it is immoral to fail to aggress against a less moral order of people for the purpose of increasing the less moral order’s ability to conduct reciprocally beneficial results. Otherwise one passes the cost to future generations, and increases the risk that in a period of shock or weakness the less moral people may cause either or both a decline in property, or a decline in morality of the more moral people.
(“Defense against the deceit of claiming conviction when one is practicing mere convenience: externalizing costs to others.”)
As far as I know, arguing against this position cannot be done except by the non-reciprocal export of costs upon others. In other words, the failure to aggress against immoral orders can only be explained by immoral actions.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-05 08:31:00 UTC
-
( yep. “they” are going to try to kill him. conspiracy of common interest. repro
( yep. “they” are going to try to kill him. conspiracy of common interest. reproductive moral legitimacy. suggestion + outlier + opportunity. )
Domestic assassination attempts that (a) were within actionable range, and (b) were performed by domestic citizens for political reasons. (others can be tied to foreign activity by foreign actors) (please don’t waste my time with conspiriacy theories on this subject, I’ll just block you. i don’t care.)
– jackson (bullets – both weapons misfired – fought him off)
– lincoln (bullets – success)
– garfield (bullet – success)
– mckinley (bullet – success)
– teddy roosevelt (bullet – wounded )
– kennedy (bullets – success)
– regan (bullet – wounded )
– clinton (airplane – failed)
– trump (gun – failed)
20% of our presidents have been attacked at close range by people with means and opportunity. All during periods of change.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-01 18:07:00 UTC
-
****”They’re just gene machines: ‘lie, gossip, rally, shame, and form enough of
****”They’re just gene machines: ‘lie, gossip, rally, shame, and form enough of an irritant that I can get what I want through cost imposition rather than productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges.”***
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 09:30:00 UTC
-
Eat the weak. They waste the world’s resources and they inhibit our transcendenc
Eat the weak. They waste the world’s resources and they inhibit our transcendence into the gods we seek.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 08:54:00 UTC
-
The first question of ethics (cooperation) is ‘why do I not kill you and take yo
The first question of ethics (cooperation) is ‘why do I not kill you and take your things?’
The first question of debate is also ‘why do I not kill you and take your things’?
The answer to both questions is, “Because cooperation is disproportionately rewarding for both parties – at least over the medium and long term.”
But if we we lie, if we cast insults, then we are de-facto, not cooperating, to produce disproportionately rewarding ends. So ethics ends.
And if we tolerate the existence of people who engage in lie, insult, and fraud, then we are not cooperating with those with whom we cooperate. So Morality Ends.
So, unbound by cooperation, unbound by ethics, and unbound by morality, we return to violence as of greater benefit than suffering lie and insult and non-cooperation.
So it is only moral that I kill you and take your things.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 08:31:00 UTC
-
There were sick f–ks in my neighborhood in the sixties and seventies. But it wa
There were sick f–ks in my neighborhood in the sixties and seventies. But it was impossible to be anonymous. At our levels of population density, the sick f–ks can hide in their youth, hide in their teens, hide in their adulthoods. Because socialization is both what identifies and limits them.
Out of roughly 250 families in the neighborhood, we had 1- adult rapist, 1-adult who raped his daughters (a communist btw), 1 guy who grew up to be a stalker and double-murderer; 1 kid who liked to bury cats and run them over with lawn mowers; a handful of people who became drug addicts; one teacher’s daughter that became a prostitute; and god knows how many alcoholics. (My father among them).
It was an ‘unnatural’ place for for our family. We moved to this small, obscure, rural city because my father had bought a small company there. In other parts of town I’m sure our experience would have been different. But (as I understand it) they chose a less expensive house in a less expensive neighborhood, so that they could pay for the business, and because the business was unreliable. (The real estate agent warned them.)
I know this affected me because it is the reason that I have a fairly harsh opinion of man, made much worse by my experiences going to university in West Hartford, (which is quite lovely) but having to spend unfortunate amount of time in Hartford, which is only slightly better a hell hole than baltimore, bridgeport, and new haven.
In fact, the entire connecticut river valley has been turned into a hell hole by union labor, the ‘puritans’, and their (((allies))) near new york.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-26 07:43:00 UTC
-
I suppose that it never occurs to ‘liberals’ that the cost of not conquering, en
I suppose that it never occurs to ‘liberals’ that the cost of not conquering, enslaving, or killing them is one we pay every day.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-21 15:28:00 UTC
-
CLEARING THE MARKET FOR CONFLICT WITH VIOLENCE One of Eli Harman’s most importan
CLEARING THE MARKET FOR CONFLICT WITH VIOLENCE
One of Eli Harman’s most important contributions to Propertarianism is the insight that violence functions as a market clearing mechanism for disputes, just as cooperation forms a market clearing mechanism for agreements.
–“Violence is the means of expressing the subjective evaluations not captured by price signals, which are as vast and varied as those which are.”—Eli Harman
Define “Market Clearing?”
The application of a concept from economics to cooperation proper:
“That which restores disequilibrium to equilibrium.”
In economics we state a market has been cleared when supply=demand: meaning no ‘problem’ exists for the market to calculate.
You can solve political problems by agreement or physical conflict. They are all solvable. You can clear the market for cooperation or the market for conflict. Both markets are clearable.
Via Negativa in Everything.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 18:35:00 UTC