I agree to cooperate with you as long as it is not harmful to do so. I dont even require that it is profitable. It just cannot subject me to effort, expenditure or loss.
But parasitism is not something I agree to.
And progressivism is parasitism.
Source date (UTC): 2014-06-09 07:51:00 UTC
“You have given me so many other legs up, maybe you can give me one more leg up?”
Generous charity merely serves to attract parasites.
Why do I never learn?
Never show people that you have money. Living outside the states has served to teach me this lesson which I failed to learn living in the states.
Source date (UTC): 2014-06-06 21:59:00 UTC
Rothbardian ethics are all well and good if you want to be a parasite within a high trust low transaction cost society – and harm it in exchange. Or you want to construct a low trust society with high transaction costs that allow you to be one of many parasites.
But rothbardianism legalizes parasitism under high transaction costs, that are WORSE than the parasitism of the state and its low transaction costs.
Rothbardianism is worse than statism.
Source date (UTC): 2014-06-06 02:51:00 UTC
http://www.thepcmdgazette.com/news/lesbian-mayor-rules-that-all-bathrooms-now-unisex/THE RULES OF SUPERPREDATOR COOPERATION
Someone needs to remind this woman that human males are the world’s most successful superpredator – and that we just BARELY manage to contain each other MOST of the time. And that we have all sorts of rules and habits and obligations in order to contain each other.
And if women don’t SEE those rules, habits and obligations or see the NEED for those rules, habits and obligations that has NOTHING to do with the NECESSITY for those rules habits and obligations.
Those rules, which we carefully but unknowingly evolved over millennia, allow us to thrive in a high trust society by carefully allocating incentives to males to cooperate at every level of society. Those rules are counter-intuitive, fragile and unique in human history.
W.E.I.R.D. societies like ours are an unnatural exception – a temporary oddity made possible by a short term asymmetry of technological innovation, soon to be quashed by social and reproductive and social superiority of universal paternalism and the traditional family.
Women are, if we catalog their votes and their publications, incredibly ‘dumb’ about political systems. I can only suspect that it’s that they have different intuitions than we men do. Because they demonstrate very different concerns from what men do – they take the art of containing males as a natural force of gravity, rather than a fragile accident of history.
We men create political systems to contain each other – and to force cooperation rather than predation and parasitism. Women are, in fact, only along for the ride. Because politics is the organized application of violence to provide means of cooperation between superpredators. And female participation in politics is a luxury of the success of the rules, habits and obligations that their male counterparts have built over the centuries.
**Feminism paired with socialism, is just a program that facilitates the conquest of egalitarian males, by inegalitarian males. Women are not material in the long run. But in the short run they have incrementally destroyed western civilization by destroying the incentives of males to act according to the rules, habits, and obligations needed to constrain males.**
The end of the single-motherhood era is near ended. Because without marriage and universal property rights, male parasitism, predation, paternalism and tyranny are logical preferences providing superior incentives.
Just how it is ladies. Deal with it.
Source date (UTC): 2014-06-04 10:24:00 UTC
ON THE COMPATIBLE PREDATORY STRATEGIES OF WHITES AND JEWS
(truth, optimistic, politically incorrect)
—“The backbone of the race denial movement was a specific radical Jewish subculture that had become entirely within the mainstream of the American Jewish community by the early twentieth century—the subject of Chapters 2and 3 of The Culture of Critique (see also here). There is excellent evidence for their strong Jewish identifications, their concern with specific Jewish issues such as anti-Semitism, and for their hostility and sense of moral and intellectual superiority toward the traditional people and culture of America.Jonathan Marks is a contemporary example of this long and dishonorable tradition.”—
Eh… Well, on one hand its true, and there isn’t anything novel about the argument – it’s central to the jewish enlightenment: how to use secular arguments to justify retention of jewish group evolutionary strategy. On the other hand, if a people, white people in this case, are susceptible to self-hatred, excessive gullibility, and universalism, I tend to blame the gullible not those trying to justify fitting into society.
Whites have an exceptional evolutionary strategy: high trust universalism, cult of the warrior, organized arms, technology, conquest and colonization. This is an evolutionary strategy for a minority that must compete against wealthier and more numerous peoples. Decentralization is a very powerful force for competing against centralized societies better able to concentrate force. Conversely, Jews have traditionally relied upon a more parasitic rather than competitive or colonial strategy. These two strategies actually help one another because each group basically needs the other, because it avoids the specializations of the other.
But we can’t deny that christians are responsible for predatory colonialism and jews for the promulgation of, and absurd success at, creating pseudosciences and pseudo moral arguments justifying parasitism.
Just how is is. We whites shouldn’t be exporting war and colonization even if it drags people out of ignorance and poverty. And jews shouldn’t be propagating pseudosciences to justify their inclusion in society while retaining their parasitism. But we do. ‘Cause its been an evolutionary success to do so. And evolutionary success matters. You can criticize someone’s evolutionary success. If it’s guns, germs and steel, or if its pseudoscience and parasitism the difference is irrelevant. They’re both means of predation upon others.
I tend to not deny the truth of our past actions, but to ask what we can do going forward to take advantage of our natural superiorities without parasitism and predation.
Curt Doolittle
(edited and reposted for archival purposes)
Source date (UTC): 2014-06-03 15:52:00 UTC
ON THE COMPATIBLE PREDATORY STRATEGIES OF WHITES AND JEWS (truth, optimistic, politically incorrect) —“The backbone of the race denial movement was a specific radical Jewish subculture that had become entirely within the mainstream of the American Jewish community by the early twentieth century—the subject of Chapters 2and 3 of The Culture of Critique (see also here). There is excellent evidence for their strong Jewish identifications, their concern with specific Jewish issues such as anti-Semitism, and for their hostility and sense of moral and intellectual superiority toward the traditional people and culture of America.Jonathan Marks is a contemporary example of this long and dishonorable tradition.”— Eh… [W]ell, on one hand its true, and there isn’t anything novel about the argument – it’s central to the jewish enlightenment: how to use secular arguments to justify retention of jewish group evolutionary strategy. On the other hand, if a people, white people in this case, are susceptible to self-hatred, excessive gullibility, and universalism, I tend to blame the gullible not those trying to justify fitting into society. Whites have an exceptional evolutionary strategy: high trust universalism, cult of the warrior, organized arms, technology, conquest and colonization. This is an evolutionary strategy for a minority that must compete against wealthier and more numerous peoples. Decentralization is a very powerful force for competing against centralized societies better able to concentrate force. Conversely, Jews have traditionally relied upon a more parasitic rather than competitive or colonial strategy. These two strategies actually help one another because each group basically needs the other, because it avoids the specializations of the other. But we can’t deny that christians are responsible for predatory colonialism and jews for the promulgation of, and absurd success at, creating pseudosciences and pseudo moral arguments justifying parasitism. Just how is is. We whites shouldn’t be exporting war and colonization even if it drags people out of ignorance and poverty. And jews shouldn’t be propagating pseudosciences to justify their inclusion in society while retaining their parasitism. But we do. ‘Cause its been an evolutionary success to do so. And evolutionary success matters. You can criticize someone’s evolutionary success. If it’s guns, germs and steel, or if its pseudoscience and parasitism the difference is irrelevant. They’re both means of predation upon others. I tend to not deny the truth of our past actions, but to ask what we can do going forward to take advantage of our natural superiorities without parasitism and predation. Curt Doolittle (edited and reposted for archival purposes)
ON THE COMPATIBLE PREDATORY STRATEGIES OF WHITES AND JEWS (truth, optimistic, politically incorrect) —“The backbone of the race denial movement was a specific radical Jewish subculture that had become entirely within the mainstream of the American Jewish community by the early twentieth century—the subject of Chapters 2and 3 of The Culture of Critique (see also here). There is excellent evidence for their strong Jewish identifications, their concern with specific Jewish issues such as anti-Semitism, and for their hostility and sense of moral and intellectual superiority toward the traditional people and culture of America.Jonathan Marks is a contemporary example of this long and dishonorable tradition.”— Eh… [W]ell, on one hand its true, and there isn’t anything novel about the argument – it’s central to the jewish enlightenment: how to use secular arguments to justify retention of jewish group evolutionary strategy. On the other hand, if a people, white people in this case, are susceptible to self-hatred, excessive gullibility, and universalism, I tend to blame the gullible not those trying to justify fitting into society. Whites have an exceptional evolutionary strategy: high trust universalism, cult of the warrior, organized arms, technology, conquest and colonization. This is an evolutionary strategy for a minority that must compete against wealthier and more numerous peoples. Decentralization is a very powerful force for competing against centralized societies better able to concentrate force. Conversely, Jews have traditionally relied upon a more parasitic rather than competitive or colonial strategy. These two strategies actually help one another because each group basically needs the other, because it avoids the specializations of the other. But we can’t deny that christians are responsible for predatory colonialism and jews for the promulgation of, and absurd success at, creating pseudosciences and pseudo moral arguments justifying parasitism. Just how is is. We whites shouldn’t be exporting war and colonization even if it drags people out of ignorance and poverty. And jews shouldn’t be propagating pseudosciences to justify their inclusion in society while retaining their parasitism. But we do. ‘Cause its been an evolutionary success to do so. And evolutionary success matters. You can criticize someone’s evolutionary success. If it’s guns, germs and steel, or if its pseudoscience and parasitism the difference is irrelevant. They’re both means of predation upon others. I tend to not deny the truth of our past actions, but to ask what we can do going forward to take advantage of our natural superiorities without parasitism and predation. Curt Doolittle (edited and reposted for archival purposes)
FREE RIDING IS NOT AN EXCEPTION IT IS THE RULE. IT IS NATURAL TO MAN. PROPERTY IS THE EXCEPTION. ITS UNNATURAL. AND CREATING THE INSTITUTIONAL HABIT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IS AN ACTIVE NOT PASSIVE PROJECT. [Y]a’ gotta’ understand: aristocracy is an activist form of defense. We evolved in a state of pervasive free riding. To create the institution of Property, you must deny people access to the fruits of your efforts except by voluntary exchange. To deny them access, you must use violence. You must first stop existing free riding. Then you must prevent future free riding. You cannot obtain liberty by pacifism, or reaction alone. Property requires activism. Because aggression against your property: the attempt to free ride upon your efforts, is not an exception – it is the RULE. Sorry. Aristocracy of the willing, for the willing.
PRESERVING THE BENEFITS OF LIBERTY FOR THE EXCLUSIVE ENJOYMENT OF THE WILLING
By Eli Harman
—“Asking people to forego parasitism (if they’re weak) or predation (if they’re strong) is asking them to bear a substantial opportunity cost. They will only do so if someone stands ready to impose a higher actual cost for choosing to engage in them.
This is what Curt Doolittle means when he says “liberty must be manufactured by violence.”
Libertarians love to sing liberty’s praises, and there is much to be said in its favor. But it does not follow from this that liberty is always in everyone’s best interests. There are many people who stand to lose more from liberty than they would stand to gain. (And not just because they misperceive the situation.) There are still more people for whom the uncertainty over what they would stand to gain or lose would make desiring liberty irrational.
The incentives that favor liberty do not exist by default, they must be proactively created. And in order for this to happen there must be people likely to benefit from liberty, strong people, capable people, wise people, intelligent people, responsible people, farsighted people; in short, aristocrats. And they must organize to impose liberty on the remainder by force, and in many cases, to their detriment, or to their enduring resentment.
If liberty is thus to be manufactured, the problem of free-riding must also be overcome by institutional forms that deny the benefits of liberty to those unwilling to participate in its manufacture, and that preserves the benefits for the exclusive enjoyment of those so willing.”—
Aristocracy in a nutshell.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-28 05:00:00 UTC
OBJECTIVE MORALITY AND REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY
(good piece)
Whenever any organism that can cooperate, chooses to cooperate, it confronts the problem of free riding, which eliminates the value of cooperation.
By suppressing free riding we force others to engage in production themselves. Many hands make lighter work, and the more of us are engaged in production the more productive we are. Moral prohibitions both prohibit free riding and as a consequence provide an incentive to produce.
Property then is the necessary consequence of the prohibition on free riding. And given that cases of kin selection are not in fact cases of free riding (child rearing), constraints on property in-family, in-group, and out-group can be quite different. Property rights are those necessary within a given structure of production utilizing a given reproductive structure (family). Those property rights represent the necessary rules for the suppression of free riding within that order.
Colloquial language encourages imprecise usage of precise terms. While the terms “crime, ethics and morals” each describe very different prohibitions, we conflate them frequently, which obscures their differences: Crimes describe physical transgressions. Ethics describe trust transgressions internal to an exchange. Morals describe trust transgressions into the commons. Unfortunately, while it is easy to determine whether crimes refer to cases of free riding , and largely easy to determine whether ethical prohibitions refer to cases of free riding, it is somewhat difficult to determine which moral rules refer to free riding on the commons, which are merely ritual (signal costs) and which are random error. It is difficult, but not impossible.
For these reasons, we can determine whether or not a given criminal, ethical, or moral prohibition is a case of free riding, all objective morals are ascertainable. In any given structure of production and reproduction, we can determine whether any criminal, ethical, and moral prohibition is a matter of free riding or kin selection or familialism (insurance) within that structure of production.
The difference is not subjective but instead a necessity of competition given available productive and reproductive structures. in other words, moral codes that suppress more free riding in broader division of knowledge and labor will allow the expression of talents held by members of the polity. Conversely, increases in free riding within the division of knowledge and labor compensate for weaknesses in the talents held by members of the polity.
Rothbardianism fails because aggression is a means of violation not a definition of property independent if means of transgression. Furthermore NAP/IVP only limits crime, and not only does not limit, but licenses unethical and immoral actions.
No group demonstrates this rothbardian low level of trust in-group. And those that demonstrate it out-group are the subject of persecution and genocide. Rightfully so since they are engaging in predation and parasitism, not cooperation.
As such, morals are not subjective but objective. They are necessities of competition in a given structure of production, under a given family structure.
In a homogenous polity of closely related outbred individuals with exceptional talents, very expansive property rights are useful for movement of the group against other groups. In a diverse polity of not-closely related inbred individuals, expansive property rights inhibit the parasitism of groups on other groups.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
“North Eurasian and Circumpolar hunter-gatherers (Hutterites and Amish, Puritans) will be more prone to altruistic punishment than those from Middle Old World culture area (Jews, Gypsies, Chinese)…. Puritan groups seem particularly prone to bouts of moralistic outrage directed at those of their own people seen as free riders and morally blameworthy.” -Kevin MacDonald
–MORE–
See: Family Types
http://www.propertarianism.com/glossary/#kin
Families as unity of cultural production
http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/27/families-as-the-unit-of-cultural-production-in-a-civilization/
*The Unique Culture of the North Sea Peoples
http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/02/15/on-the-north-sea-peoples/
The Culture That Suppresses All Discounts, All Free-Riding, All Involuntary Transfer, All Unethical And Immoral Action
http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/27/7158/
The Uniqueness of the North Sea Peoples
http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/02/15/on-the-north-sea-peoples/
The Ethics of the high trust northerner europeans
http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/03/descriptive-high-trust-ethics-of-northern-europeans/
Circumpolar Altruistic Punishment
http://www.propertarianism.com/2013/11/26/but-is-it-genetic/
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-24 01:23:00 UTC