Theme: Reform

  • THROW OUT THE LIBERTARIAN BABY WITH THE PROGRESSIVE BATHWATER LIBERTARIAN != ROT

    http://blog.jim.com/politics/the-dark-enlightenment-critique-of-libertarianism.htmlDONT THROW OUT THE LIBERTARIAN BABY WITH THE PROGRESSIVE BATHWATER

    LIBERTARIAN != ROTHBARDIAN ANARCHO CAPITALIST. Classical liberals are also ‘libertarians’. Rothbardians via the Mises institute adopted the tactics of the marxists, but this time, using the internet – so they’re ‘everywhere’. Anarcho capitalism was structured like the marxist IDEOLOGY. It is a MORAL, not scientific argument, for ideological rather than political purposes.

    The anarcho capitalist program DID give us:

    a) the incentives of a bureaucracy are worse than the incentives of a monarchy.

    b) the critique that democracy was simply a slow road to communism,

    c) propertarian ethics that make all moral codes commensurable and

    d) the use of competing insurance companies to replace monopoly bureaucracy.

    e) the sufficiency of the common law, and the necessity for it.

    f) the state as the cause of ‘evil corporations’.

    g) the required prohibition on law-making, and the constraint of government to contract negotiation between groups.

    What it did not give us is:

    a) means of investments in commons (government)

    b) means of preventing free riding, fraud by omission, theft via externality, privatization of gains and socialization of losses.

    c) a means of accommodating the collectivism of women in their effort to restore the sex economy in favor of the productive economy (but that’s too long a discussion.)

    Thankfully others have given us:

    a) lottocratic representation

    b) direct democracy

    And hopefully I’m trying to fix that. I think I have. But I’m not sure.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-11 07:24:00 UTC

  • TO TOM : ON THE UTOPIANISM OF LIBERTARIANISM (all) (worth reading) (insight) Rot

    TO TOM : ON THE UTOPIANISM OF LIBERTARIANISM

    (all) (worth reading) (insight)

    Rothbard’s idea is INTENTIONALLY UTOPIAN because he was, like dozens before him, creating a ‘religion’ in pre-democratic political terms, or what in democratic political terms is ‘an ideology’, using OBSCURANT LANGUAGE – the purpose of which is resist criticism, empower argumentation, and create community.

    The MI group (Lew) then took this ideology and used the internet to propagate that ideology the way the marxists used inexpensive pamphlets, newspapers, books and universities. But, Rothbard’s libertarianism is an ideology (religion) not politics (formal institutions of cooperation).

    That Rothbard used the rebellious ethics of the jewish ghetto rather than the the high trust ethics of the aristocratic egalitarian society (protestant christianity) is just because it was familiar to him. Hoppe by contrast, repaired a great deal of Rothbard’s errors, but in doing so left us with not necessarily utopian, but certainly a system of ethics dependent upon equality of ethical and moral action, under the nation states with absolute nuclear families, and therefore fully homogenized property rights. This system cannot tolerate diversity.

    However, by adding monarchies, and strict property rights, hoppe’s argument is such that it is possible to have DIVERSE COMMUNITIES each of which uses its own norms and status signals, but which trades and exchanges according to private property rights. And this is possible because under monarchy and property rights, individuals are denied access to coercive political power. So, in Hoppeian terms, groups may continue to act as extended families.

    What I have tried to do is empirically demonstrate that both genetics of gender, and family structure (the structure of reproduction) determine moral codes. And that the Absolute Nuclear Family is the ultimate compromise between male and female reproductive strategies. But that the evolution of democracy combined with feminism,and the destruction of the nuclear family by feminists in alliance with socialists, has led to a circumstance where women can now ‘marry the state’ for financial support and obtain support from males without exchange of care and sex. This is not unnatural. Humans are naturally serially monogamous and women in history seize both the best male fertility, and the best male support in exchange for sex, that they can – but not from the same person, from many men.

    Property is not natural. It allowed men to control reproduction, and women resent this because it places a greater burden on them to make a choice of husband, and they are stuck with what they get. And they can no longer control group behavior by trading sex and affection. It is this choice, plus the need to create a home and property to support a family that created the compromise that was the protestant ANF.

    For this reason, both Rothbard and Hoppe make the mistake that was made by classical liberals: once included in the voting and work pool, women have sought to restore control over their reproduction and independence from the compromise with males.

    If you want to understand the drive to socialism, there are two axis of cause. This is the first, the second is that small homogenous groups that are out-bred are in fact, family members and as such socialism (in the nordic model) makes sense. There is no ‘belief’ system here. it is all justificationary language. The fact is that the structure of production at any given time can be optimized by a particular structure of reproduction (the family). And that freedom (liberty) is only possible in small, homogenous, out-bred, groups formally forbidden to intermarry as a means of obtaining insurance, and instead, forced to outbreed, and therefore seek insurance from ‘the tribe’ with the state as the insurance broker. This situation cannot change, because it is against the reproductive interests of humans to change. It is suicide to change. Small homogenous outbred families are in fact, highly redistributive, healthy organizations that eliminate near proximity competition and force all competition into the market for goods and services – there is no outlet left. NONE. That is why it works. The ANF, is the genetic institution that creates a compromise. It is, in fact, SOCIALISM. (Let that sink in a bit and it will alter your world.)

    THIS IS, IN NO SMALL PART, THE FIRST SECTION OF MY BOOK. It explains the diversity and immutability of moral codes, and therefore the political expression of morality informal institutions, as relationships between the structure of production and the structure of the family; And it is illogical to expect humans to act otherwise – against their reproductive and experiential interests. It is NOT PRAXEOLOGICALLY RATIONAL to ask people to act against their interests.

    SO ROTHBARD, HOPPE, AND ….

    1) Rothbard (tribal religion of non-landholders)

    2) Hoppe (private nation state of land holders)

    3) Doolittle (private federation of states of land holders)

    With these three models we complete libertarianism in all its possible forms. This is the corpus of solutions from the most ideological and religious (rothbard) to the most practical and moral (hoppe) to the ratio-scientific (doolittle). All of which are founded on property rights – although I have used DESCRIPTIVE property rights across ALL family structures where hoppe and rothbard have use PRESCRIPTIVE property rights and ASSUMED the nuclear family as the unit of reproduction.

    (That’s what I’m up to. ‘Completing’ libertarianism. )

    UTOPIAN?

    Rothbard’s fantasy is clearly utopian. It hasn’t worked very well for the jews, that’s for sure. Except for the postwar period, the entire world has been killing them by the hundreds, thousands and millions for millennia. Comparisons to India’s Gypsies is pretty common, except that gypsies are anti-intellectual at the bottom and jews hyper intellectual at the top. But, what rothbard DID, was reduce all rights to property rights, and give us the answer to human cooperation in doing so.

    Hoppe’s solution is ABSOLUTE GENIUS and so deeply engrained in political discourse by now that everyone’s forgotten it’s his idea already. While Argumentation is an analogy, not a cause, (and so I’m critical of it), he used it to deduce the solution to the problem of monopoly bureaucracy and the state by reducing the state to a contract on property rights, and using insurance companies, which is the states’s actual function, to form a competitive bureaucracy.

    His solution is not empirically derived, it is rationally derived, and he still makes (unfortunately) moral arguments in the rothbardian model, but in fact, he DID SOLVE THE PROBLEM that has been the ‘problem of politics’ for 5000 years. And as far as I know, no other thinker has done this – based on (ack) argumentation or not.

    I won’t go into why argumentation worked despite the fact that it’s a bit silly. That would take me too long. But it allowed Hoppe to deduce the correct answers in almost all cases. IN particular, to immigration. Which again, the migratory, non-property owning, progressive jewish wing of libertarians find understandably uncomfortable.

    END RESULT : A RESEARCH

    There is nothing utopian about a RESEARCH PROGRAM, which is what I see hoppe, rothbard and Hayek pursuing. Hayek did not have information theory. Hoppe did not have the empirical evidence we have today. Rothbard either didn’t understand or din’t want to understand his moral code’s implications. Mises got praxeology backwards. But it was all there. It was all there. We just needed a little more time. And as far as I can tell it is the most valuable political research program since the enlightenment and not matched in creativity since athens.

    Calculation is necessary. Reproduction is necessary. Cooperation is necessary.

    Everything else is preference.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-11 05:23:00 UTC

  • (Sketch) Eliminate the state sponsored corporation. A corporation is a partnersh

    (Sketch)

    Eliminate the state sponsored corporation.

    A corporation is a partnership whose members are insured by a monopoly insurer insulated from competition: the state.

    All associations are, and only can be, partnerships.

    Restore right of suit for any and all involuntary transfers, outside of morally sanctioned competition, against any and all individuals within the partnership and their agents.

    Require insurance bonds be purchased by the partnership.

    Require all employees be bonded if they communicate with or act on behalf of, customers.

    (The incentives will favor truth telling and allocate money and status to truth-tellers.)

    Stock certificates shall not represent ownership, but a purchase of contractual rights to dividends that are guaranteed by the assets in the event of liquidation or sale. Control then shall not be democratic, but contractual.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-07 09:26:00 UTC

  • WSJ NBC POLL. “A majority of Americans don’t identify with **either** party.” Ne

    WSJ NBC POLL.

    “A majority of Americans don’t identify with **either** party.”

    Never been a chance like this. But the progressive wing of libertarians would screw it up anyway.

    Its time.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-31 13:01:00 UTC

  • I just really like this meme. Our job as libertarians is not to be the majority

    I just really like this meme. Our job as libertarians is not to be the majority – we cant be. It’s to be intellectual arms dealers to anyone who opposes the totalitarian state. That is a really good meme. It’s a really good meme.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-25 06:40:00 UTC

  • THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF COMPUTER SCIENTISTS TO THE REFORMATION IN LIBERTARIAN AND C

    THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF COMPUTER SCIENTISTS TO THE REFORMATION IN LIBERTARIAN AND CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL THOUGHT.

    When I went to Mises for the Austrian Scholars Conference the first time, I was struck dumb; first, by the incredible genius of the economic calculation argument, second by hoppe’s solution to the problem of institutions… But then equally by the failure to see that that BOTH Hayek and Mises were very close but wrong; the failure to grasp the importance of Popper’s contribution; the failure to grasp that no, the calculation issue was not ‘complete’.

    I realized something was wrong with Rothbard fairly quickly. It took me a few years to understand what Mises had done wrong with Praxeology, and only recently how to solve it completely. Hoppe was right about just about everything, but still had both Rothbard’s and Mises’ errors. But even so, he’d managed to get it all right anyway. Which, to me, is an even greater statement of his brilliance. Although, I’m still frustrated by his fascination with Argumentation.

    But it is this emphasis on experience and morality and preference instead of calculation that is everyone’s distraction. ( A topic that needs some reflection and exposition. And so I’ll return to it.)

    COMPUTER SCIENTISTS AND REFORMATION

    So strange. You know, there is this strange anti-computer-science bias in academia. But since the majority of intellectual revolution has come out of Mencius’ application of Austrian thought to conservatism, and my application of Austrian thought to libertarianism, while political science is fascinated by democracy, philosophy still squandering in the artifice of metaphysical pseudo-rationality, and mainstream economics is fascinated by growth and efficiency, and the left (literature) with obscurantism, pseudo-science, equality, diversity, and central control.

    And since, computer science is the only discipline that intersects between theoretical constructs and human interaction directly, I kind of think that, empirically speaking, computer science has more right than math, and certainly more right than economics. And political science and social science don’t even register signal above noise.

    Economics is a process of deduction from aggregation. Computer science is atomistic by its nature. It’s not deduction. It’s calculation. And therein lies an amazing difference in perception. We do not HAVE the economic data to tell us about human behavior at the level of atomicity we do with computers that interact with people on a daily basis. This teaches you about the hubris we must avoid when interacting with human beings.

    Math is platonic. Economics is idealistic. Computer science understands ‘ignorance, bias, incentives, and the limits of calculation’. Which is probably why we solved the political problem and the other groups didn’t.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-22 09:33:00 UTC

  • “EXPLAIN PROGRESSIVE VS CONSERVATIVE” Progressive and conservative express posit

    “EXPLAIN PROGRESSIVE VS CONSERVATIVE”

    Progressive and conservative express positions relative to the status quo. However, out of repeated use, this term refers to the difference between State control of society (left = totalitarianism), and ‘normative’ control of society (right = libertarianism).

    NOLAN/ASPLUND POLITICAL CHART

    However, the ‘NOLAN CHART’ is a more accurate and sophisticated view of politics as two dimensions. Left totalitarianism of the state via law, right totalitarianism of ‘norms’, and libertarian totalitarianism of commerce is probably the most accurate way of thinking about political biases.

    [see asplund chart]

    The problem is. This chart helps you organize political biases, but it doesn’t tell you WHY WE HAVE THEM. So we need to look at something else. Because it turns out that we don’t, except for the statistically insignificant, ever change our political biases.

    RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL ORIGINS

    In my own work, I’ve tried to show how totalitarian, normative, and libertarian biases tend to originate from different religious and cultural backgrounds in europe.

    [See Doolittle Chart]

    FAMILY STRUCTURES

    And Emmanuel Todd’s work shows that these religious structures roughly correspond to our FAMILY structures. With conservatives in the nuclear family, catholics in the traditional family, jews in the extended family, and muslims in the tribal family. We are now able to trace the progressive left’s origins as an alliance between Northeast Puritan Women, The Feminist Movement, and the Jewish Communist Movement.

    [See Todd’s Diagrams]

    So Emmanuel Todd’s map of immigration and family structures, looks much like my map of religious structures (which you can find on the web now in a few places. It seems to be spreading a bit.)

    AMERICAN DEMOGRAPHICS

    So if you look at these maps of america:

    [ SEE MAPS OF AMERICA]

    It’s pretty clear, given everyone’s origins, where their political biases come from: their moral codes reflect their cultural origins, the relationship between their family structures, moral codes, and economic demands.

    PRACTICAL IMPACT

    If you understand this set of charts, you’ll quickly grasp, that all our political talk is purely entertainment and spent energy. Our political biases, like our moral intuitions, are not voluntarily chosen except at the margins.

    The people who decide elections in america consist of two groups:

    (a) Uninvolved, Uncommitted, and Unaware voters who represent from 7-14% of the populace (depending on who you ask), and who can be swayed by popular opinion and emotion rather than political conviction or reason, and (b) single mothers and young women who now represent a NEW FAMILY STRUCTURE, and who are highly biased toward the state (the left). It is these two groups who determine the outcome of elections, since everyone else is pretty committed and reasonably evenly distributed. (See Pew research.)

    This is why conservatives use every trick in the book to retain the nuclear family and progressives eery trick in the book to undermine the nuclear family because the nuclear family, and it’s civic independence is the primary threat to state power. Religion has always been an effective means of resisting the western state. And conservatives use this because it means they get to establish their own moral grounds insulated from argument. Just as progressives try the same by different means.

    SOURCE OF POLITICAL BIASES

    (1) Genetics

    (2) Gender

    (3) Childhood family structure

    (4) Culture

    (5) Environment

    (6) Willful Informed Adult Choice

    GENDER BIASES

    When we created representative democracy the head of household was a male with discretion over family use of property, and was the equivalent of a small or medium sized business owner today. These men had homogenous moral and cultural codes. They had relatively homogenous interests that differed only by scale. The opposing reproductive and therefore moral intuition for men and women was homogenized by the nuclear family structure. But the addition of women to the workplace and the voting pool eliminated that compromise. And as each generation passes, women increasingly are either single, or single mothers, and vote the female reproductive bias, which is to bear children and care for them but place responsibility for their support and upkeep on the tribe as much as possible. Other factors matter, but by and large it is women and their preference to press the costs of childrearing on the ‘tribe’ that has determined the gradual leftward motion in america, and left the conservative nuclear family with its emphasis on self reliance in the minority. There are more issues here but I’m attempting to emphasize that our political biases are not the conscious choices that we think they are. We are incredibly predictable.

    [See Masculine Feminine Biases Diagram]

    RECOMMENDED READING

    1) “Political Ideologies : An Introduction” by Andrew Heywood.

    Political Ideologies: An Introduction: Andrew Heywood: 9780230367258: Amazon.com: Books

    2) “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haidt

    The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion: Jonathan Haidt: 9780307377906: Amazon.com: Books


    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-21 11:08:00 UTC

  • Is There A Better Word For Progressive Beliefs Than “progressivism”?

    I WILL TRY TO DO YOUR QUESTION JUSTICE

    (If you think I have then please promote this piece)

    PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE AND THE STATUS QUO
    Progressive and conservative express positions relative to the status quo.
    However, out of repeated use, this term refers to the difference between State control of society (left = totalitarianism), and ‘normative’ control of society (right = libertarianism).


    NOLAN/ASPLUND POLITICAL CHART
    However, the ‘NOLAN CHART’ is a more accurate and sophisticated view of politics as two dimensions.   Left totalitarianism of the state via law, right totalitarianism of ‘norms’, and libertarian totalitarianism of commerce is probably the most accurate way of thinking about political biases.


     





    The problem is. This chart helps you organize political biases, but it doesn’t tell you WHY WE HAVE THEM.   So we need to look at something else. Because it turns out that we don’t, except for the statistically insignificant, ever change our political biases.


    RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL ORIGINS
    In my own work, I’ve tried to  show how totalitarian, normative, and libertarian biases tend to originate from different religious and cultural backgrounds in europe.









    FAMILY STRUCTURES
    And Emmanuel Todd’s work shows that these religious structures roughly correspond to our FAMILY structures.  With conservatives in the nuclear family, catholics in the traditional family, jews in the extended family, and muslims in the tribal family.  We are now able to trace the progressive left’s origins as an alliance between Northeast Puritan Women,  The Feminist Movement, and the Jewish Communist Movement.









    So Emmanuel Todd’s map of immigration and family structures, looks much like my map of religious structures (which you can find on the web now in a few places. It seems to be spreading a bit.)

    AMERICAN DEMOGRAPHICS
    So if you look at these maps of america:







    It’s pretty clear, given everyone’s origins, where their political biases come from: their moral codes reflect their cultural origins,  the relationship between their family structures, moral codes, and economic demands.


    PRACTICAL IMPACT
    If you understand this set of charts, you’ll quickly grasp, that all our political talk is purely entertainment and spent energy. Our political biases, like our moral intuitions, are not voluntarily chosen except at the margins.

    The people who decide elections in america consist of two groups:
    (a) Uninvolved, Uncommitted, and Unaware voters who represent from 7-14% of the populace (depending on who you ask), and who can be swayed by popular opinion and emotion rather than political conviction or reason, and (b) single mothers and young women who now represent a NEW FAMILY STRUCTURE, and who are highly biased toward the state (the left). It is these two groups who determine the outcome of elections, since everyone else is  pretty committed and reasonably evenly distributed. (See Pew research.)

    This is why conservatives use every trick in the book to retain the nuclear family and progressives eery trick in the book to undermine the nuclear family because the nuclear family, and it’s civic independence is the primary threat to state power. Religion has always been an effective means of resisting the western state. And conservatives use this because it means they get to establish their own moral grounds insulated from argument.  Just as progressives try the same by different means.

    SOURCE OF POLITICAL BIASES
    (1) Genetics
    (2) Gender
    (3) Childhood family structure
    (4) Culture
    (5) Environment
    (6) Willful Informed Adult Choice

    GENDER BIASES
    When we created representative democracy the head of household was a male with discretion over family use of property, and was the equivalent of a small or medium sized business owner today. These men had homogenous moral and cultural codes. They had relatively homogenous interests that differed only by scale.  The opposing reproductive and therefore moral intuition for men and women was homogenized by the nuclear family structure.  But the addition of women to the workplace and the voting pool eliminated that compromise. And as each generation passes, women increasingly are either single, or single mothers, and vote the female reproductive bias, which is to bear children and care for them but place responsibility for their support and upkeep on the tribe as much as possible. Other factors matter, but by and large it is women and their preference to press the costs of childrearing on the ‘tribe’ that has determined the gradual leftward motion in america, and left the conservative nuclear family with its emphasis on self reliance in the minority. There are more issues here but I’m attempting to emphasize that our political biases are not the conscious choices that we think they are.  We are incredibly predictable.



    RECOMMENDED READING
    1) “Political Ideologies : An Introduction” by Andrew Heywood.
    Political Ideologies: An Introduction: Andrew Heywood: 9780230367258: Amazon.com: Books

    2) “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haidt
    The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion: Jonathan Haidt: 9780307377906: Amazon.com: Books

    https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-better-word-for-progressive-beliefs-than-progressivism

  • Is There A Better Word For Progressive Beliefs Than “progressivism”?

    I WILL TRY TO DO YOUR QUESTION JUSTICE

    (If you think I have then please promote this piece)

    PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE AND THE STATUS QUO
    Progressive and conservative express positions relative to the status quo.
    However, out of repeated use, this term refers to the difference between State control of society (left = totalitarianism), and ‘normative’ control of society (right = libertarianism).


    NOLAN/ASPLUND POLITICAL CHART
    However, the ‘NOLAN CHART’ is a more accurate and sophisticated view of politics as two dimensions.   Left totalitarianism of the state via law, right totalitarianism of ‘norms’, and libertarian totalitarianism of commerce is probably the most accurate way of thinking about political biases.


     





    The problem is. This chart helps you organize political biases, but it doesn’t tell you WHY WE HAVE THEM.   So we need to look at something else. Because it turns out that we don’t, except for the statistically insignificant, ever change our political biases.


    RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL ORIGINS
    In my own work, I’ve tried to  show how totalitarian, normative, and libertarian biases tend to originate from different religious and cultural backgrounds in europe.









    FAMILY STRUCTURES
    And Emmanuel Todd’s work shows that these religious structures roughly correspond to our FAMILY structures.  With conservatives in the nuclear family, catholics in the traditional family, jews in the extended family, and muslims in the tribal family.  We are now able to trace the progressive left’s origins as an alliance between Northeast Puritan Women,  The Feminist Movement, and the Jewish Communist Movement.









    So Emmanuel Todd’s map of immigration and family structures, looks much like my map of religious structures (which you can find on the web now in a few places. It seems to be spreading a bit.)

    AMERICAN DEMOGRAPHICS
    So if you look at these maps of america:







    It’s pretty clear, given everyone’s origins, where their political biases come from: their moral codes reflect their cultural origins,  the relationship between their family structures, moral codes, and economic demands.


    PRACTICAL IMPACT
    If you understand this set of charts, you’ll quickly grasp, that all our political talk is purely entertainment and spent energy. Our political biases, like our moral intuitions, are not voluntarily chosen except at the margins.

    The people who decide elections in america consist of two groups:
    (a) Uninvolved, Uncommitted, and Unaware voters who represent from 7-14% of the populace (depending on who you ask), and who can be swayed by popular opinion and emotion rather than political conviction or reason, and (b) single mothers and young women who now represent a NEW FAMILY STRUCTURE, and who are highly biased toward the state (the left). It is these two groups who determine the outcome of elections, since everyone else is  pretty committed and reasonably evenly distributed. (See Pew research.)

    This is why conservatives use every trick in the book to retain the nuclear family and progressives eery trick in the book to undermine the nuclear family because the nuclear family, and it’s civic independence is the primary threat to state power. Religion has always been an effective means of resisting the western state. And conservatives use this because it means they get to establish their own moral grounds insulated from argument.  Just as progressives try the same by different means.

    SOURCE OF POLITICAL BIASES
    (1) Genetics
    (2) Gender
    (3) Childhood family structure
    (4) Culture
    (5) Environment
    (6) Willful Informed Adult Choice

    GENDER BIASES
    When we created representative democracy the head of household was a male with discretion over family use of property, and was the equivalent of a small or medium sized business owner today. These men had homogenous moral and cultural codes. They had relatively homogenous interests that differed only by scale.  The opposing reproductive and therefore moral intuition for men and women was homogenized by the nuclear family structure.  But the addition of women to the workplace and the voting pool eliminated that compromise. And as each generation passes, women increasingly are either single, or single mothers, and vote the female reproductive bias, which is to bear children and care for them but place responsibility for their support and upkeep on the tribe as much as possible. Other factors matter, but by and large it is women and their preference to press the costs of childrearing on the ‘tribe’ that has determined the gradual leftward motion in america, and left the conservative nuclear family with its emphasis on self reliance in the minority. There are more issues here but I’m attempting to emphasize that our political biases are not the conscious choices that we think they are.  We are incredibly predictable.



    RECOMMENDED READING
    1) “Political Ideologies : An Introduction” by Andrew Heywood.
    Political Ideologies: An Introduction: Andrew Heywood: 9780230367258: Amazon.com: Books

    2) “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haidt
    The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion: Jonathan Haidt: 9780307377906: Amazon.com: Books

    https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-better-word-for-progressive-beliefs-than-progressivism

  • LOTTOCRACY “Democracy as it was meant to be.” Kills the party system. Kills the

    LOTTOCRACY

    “Democracy as it was meant to be.”

    Kills the party system. Kills the Special Interest system. Eliminates Politicians. Eliminates Voting. Eliminates Campaigning.

    Take the power out of politics.

    Lottocracy. Secession. Competing Currencies.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-12 18:05:00 UTC