IDEAL METHODS OF GOVERNMENT DO NOT EXIST. THEY ARE SIMPLY TECHNOLOGIES TO APPLY IN DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES. (you probably want to read this) Ideal RULE exists: rule of natural law, and markets in everything providing perfect decidability in matters of conflict. Ideal *Government*- meaning the production of commons, must adapt as does any organization to market (conflict, peace, prosperity) demands.
Theme: Reciprocity
-
There Are No Ideal Governments, Only One Ideal Rule.
—“Nazism, fascism are merely conservative and nationalistic versions of socialism. Nobody is under the illusion individuals own anything under nazism/fascism. Even men’s body’s become the property of the state. The world anti fascist war was fought from 1939-45 precisely because the sober knew the danger”— A Friend Correct. It was an era of warfare against communism. The difference was that while napoleon had invented total war of nationalism, the marxists and bolsheviks had created a total war of the underclass by way of rebellion, a pseudoscientific religion to replace mysticism, using the promise of heaven in this life rather than the next. Fascism responded yet again with nationalism expanded to economic and cultural warfare in return, where napoleon had responded with military fascism in the roman model. Hitler’s ‘genius’ was to combine mussolini’s nationalism with an aesthetic religion to match or exceed that of the communist underclasses, thereby uniting classes against communism’s cult. Neither model is economically feasible, but both are simply methods of conducting warfare by the use of propaganda made possible by rail, telegraph, radio, and cinema. The pulpit could be everywhere. But we can learn from rome as usual: fascism (generalship) in times of war, and markets (rule of law) in times of peace. And that a government must adapt to circumstance, whether warfare (fascism), peace (classical liberalism), or surplus (social democracy). And that such adaptation is merely scientific necessity rather than pondering the folly of philosophical ideals. In other words: Technology(Real) not philosophy(ideal). You are, I think, as a moral man, confusing the ideal ‘good’ (classical liberalism in times of peace) with the necessary (fascism in times of war), with social democracy (redistribution of windfalls) and that governments must flex between the three models as necessary given their circumstances. And better yet, that flexibility allows for the destruction of rents accumulated under each model. As far as I know the science of government is closed. All anyone can do is lie cheat and steal if they advocate otherwise. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
As far as I know, “Propertarianism” and “Nomocracy” are synonyms. It’s just that
As far as I know, “Propertarianism” and “Nomocracy” are synonyms. It’s just that Propertarianism *explains precisely why* nomocracy (rule of law) is moral – and ‘natural’.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-15 15:51:00 UTC
-
It’s a method. It’s playing “King of the Hill”. It sorts like no other method. S
It’s a method. It’s playing “King of the Hill”. It sorts like no other method. So, “Come and get some!” I’m looking for a Round Table of Lancelots – not numbers. No free riding, and no coattails.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-13 15:49:00 UTC
-
Trials under a Natural Law Inquisition will not require torture. But many hangin
Trials under a Natural Law Inquisition will not require torture. But many hangings.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-13 11:52:00 UTC
-
Natural Law Fundamentalism will defeat every other fundamentalism. That’s why
Natural Law Fundamentalism will defeat every other fundamentalism. That’s why.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-13 11:41:00 UTC
-
GENOCIDE Here is our license. FULL TEXT: David Cole broke down Abed’s academic p
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/08/muslim-professor-ca-university-genocide-white-racists-morally-required/RECIPROCITY: GENOCIDE
Here is our license.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/08/muslim-professor-ca-university-genocide-white-racists-morally-required/
FULL TEXT:
David Cole broke down Abed’s academic paper “The Concept of Genocide Reconsidered” which was originally published in 2006. Cole says in a Taki’s Mag post:
Abed reasons, it’s sometimes “morally required” to commit genocide, and he hasn’t been shy about advancing that argument in a series of lectures and essays that have somehow managed to stay under the radar of the media (especially the right-leaning media) over the past few years.
Abed lays out his central thesis in the paper’s abstract: “Genocide is not in any sense distinctively heinous. Nor is it necessarily immoral.”
Morally justified genocide? Abed realizes this might be a tough sell:
Many will no doubt be shocked by these claims. Surely a view that has such unsavory implications should be rejected. In fact, it ought to be condemned in no uncertain terms. Reactions of this sort are overblown.
Of course, any such objections by fellow academics were almost certainly silenced once Abed named the skin color of the targets of his “moral genocide”:
One can certainly concoct a hypothetical scenario in which the deliberate annihilation of a group’s way of life is a “moral and political imperative.” And there may be a case for classifying as genocide campaigns of social destruction that are widely considered to be not only excusable but morally required. The institution of slavery in the American South was, arguably, a comprehensive way of life and worldview to which many whites were profoundly attached. It would not be wildly implausible to say that their investment in the culture and norms of the slave-owning community rivaled in its social meaning and significance an individual’s affiliation with a national or religious group. But because the kidnapping, enslavement, and lifelong exploitation of innocent human beings was a constitutive and thus ineliminable feature of the life led by many Southern whites, annihilating their way of life was a moral imperative. The right course of action was to strip them of an identity that gave meaning to their lives.
Interestingly and to no one’s shock, when Mohammad Abed was confronted about the Europeans facing extinction or at least an annihilation of their way of life after millions of Muslim migrants have flooded their countries, Abed argues that Muslims intend to adopt the customs of their host country rather than alter them. 1400 years of Islamic destruction is evidence to the contrary, but when have facts ever mattered to Islamic supremacists?
Peculiar, secondly, because although it was no doubt the case that people were motivated to leave their countries of origin by a wide range of considerations, I suspect that the desire to make a better life for themselves and future generations of their families was one of the most common. If this is the case, then surely there must be something about the traditions, practices and norms of European countries that are valued and respected by immigrants. But then why set out to systematically undermine the social, cultural and political foundations of those societies?… Why would immigrants attempt to systematically undermine norms and institutional structures that guarantee their democratic freedoms, including their right to be culturally different and to practice their religion without hindrance?
Mohammad Abed is a professor at a public California university who believes it’s morally required to rid the world of evil white racists but Muslims can do no wrong. In fact, he completely ignores how Islam spread from the Arabian peninsula to other nations.
Northern Africa, Indonesia, Iran, just to name a few, were’t originally Islamic nations. They were conquered by Islamic armies. Europe will suffer the same fate as millions of Muslims flood in and out-populate the indigenous people. This Muslim invasion is a Hijrah which is jihad by emigration. Abed knows exactly what is happening, as a Hijrah is a highly meritorious act and it promises Muslims great rewards in heaven.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-11 13:11:00 UTC
-
THE ORIGIN OF ATHENIAN LAW WAS RECIPROCITY —“The decisions of the Athenian cou
THE ORIGIN OF ATHENIAN LAW WAS RECIPROCITY
—“The decisions of the Athenian courts were not originally based on laws. They arose from the injured party trying to compensate for their loss.”—
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-10 23:42:00 UTC
-
I have no problem with the industrialization of killing by any means necessary.
I have no problem with the industrialization of killing by any means necessary. But Hate, Rage, and Anger, and inflicting pain, suffering, and terror, all violate the principle of extirpation of hatred from the human heart. And Truth, Reason, Excellence and Aesthetics are enough for us to make the hard choices. *And any attempt to suggest otherwise is to admit weakness on one hand thereby demonstrating you are a danger to your kin, or to leave you susceptible to demand for tolerance of parasitism by women and non kin on the other.*
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-10 16:59:00 UTC
-
by Eli Harman ALTRUISTIC PUNISHMENT: “I will bear a cost in order to impose a co
by Eli Harman
ALTRUISTIC PUNISHMENT: “I will bear a cost in order to impose a cost on someone for imposing costs on others.”
Directly, no one wins, it’s a lose/lose/lose; costs all the way around.
Indirectly, we all benefit from the maintenance of a normative commons that discourages people from imposing costs, negative externalities, on others or refraining from contributing to benefits, positive externalities, which are shared.
This is a common human behavior and it is impossible to understand human behavior, or the evolution of societies and polities, without understanding altruistic punishment.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-09 21:14:00 UTC
-
Um. I know that if you are sensitive to the gender issue, it’s hard to see my un
Um. I know that if you are sensitive to the gender issue, it’s hard to see my underlying strategy, but I’m saying we all MUST trade. Because if we don’t trade the option is women prey upon men, or men prey upon women. In that choice, men will always prey upon women.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-06 16:52:00 UTC