PROPERTARIANISM ON RACE, CULTURE, RELIGION, GENDER, POLITICAL, AND IDEOLOGICAL, ‘ISMS’
(important piece)
We vary in our reproductive, productive, and defensive value to one another: our reproductive, productive, and defensive fitness. One’s reproductive, productive, and defensive desirability (fitness) determines one’s status: reproductive desirability, productive desirability, and value as a source of behavior we can imitation and learn from.
Status determines the opportunities one can select from exploiting, whether they be reproductive or productive. Others seek to imitate those with status, and adopt their thoughts and behaviors. Others seek to associate with those with status in order to obtain access to the same opportunities. This produces collective attraction to opportunities – our ‘flocking’ behavior evident in our politics and economics – which demonstrates our cooperation by shared interests (or conspiracy of interests). And this flocking is observable in human societies at every level: economic, reproductive, social, religious, political, and military.
While human reproductive, productive, and defensive desirability exists across a spectrum – a distribution from least to most – we tend to group people into ‘classes’ of similar interests, of which the very highest and very lowest are outliers and irrelevant; leaving us with upper, upper middle, middle, lower middle, upper lower, middle lower, and lower classes we call social and reproductive classes, but which result, because of desirability for reproduction and production, into economic classes as well – except with greater variation given our modern industrial, medical, and information economies.
**While incorrectly stated as a difference in cost of reproduction (since male deaths from production(hunting) and defense of the tribe are higher than female deaths in birth) – the genders differ not in cost but in the *control* over reproduction. Females can directly control their reproduction, nurture offspring, and rally males and females to her defense, while men can kill or prohibit other males, gain access to additional females, and defend females and offspring in order to propagate their and their brother’s genes.**
The female, socialist, dysgenic (r-selection) and lower class control strategy is to use shaming in order to deprive others of opportunity of cooperation with them. The male, aristocratic, eugenic and upper class control strategy is to use force to prevent parasitism and to preserve cooperation(k-selection), while spreading his genes to the best females possible. The male, libertarian and eugenic, middle class control strategy (exchange selection/productivity selection), is to organize production by voluntary cooperation and produce rewards for everyone while spreading his genes to the best females possible. Yet in history it appears that 70% of females manage to reproduce but only 30% of males. Meaning we only achieved compromise through the institution of marriage, and thereby pacifying males, and enabling females to reproduce in greater numbers.
The female reproductive economic strategy (r-selection) is to bear as many children as she can, to place their cost upon the tribe, and to advocate for their success regardless of their merit. The male economic reproductive strategy is to capture as many females by killing as many opposing tribe’s males, then pairing off with mates so that all brothers maintain incentives. This paring off is the most effective compromise between the genders (which is institutionalized in marriage). If combined with creative ‘cheating’ by males and females, both social alliance and reproductive improvement can be achieved.
We divide the work of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor and advocacy into a temporal spectrum of short term consumption, medium term production, and long term accumulation. Our perceptions are not equal. Our evaluations of our perceptions are not equal. Our knowledge is incomplete. It is only through cooperation: voluntary exchange – that we know what is truly beneficial, insufficiently beneficial, or detrimental. Just as we can only act in large numbers through the market for voluntary exchange of goods and services, and the resulting information and incentives provided by prices.
We persuade people into cooperation, and violate existing cooperation by only three methods: 1) force or protection from force, 2) remuneration (voluntary exchange), 3) gossip, shaming and rallying (ostracization from opportunity). Only the second – voluntary exchange – is non-coercive. And only non-coercive persuasion by voluntary exchange is in fact cooperation rather than threat of deprivation or harm.
So our options reflect our genders and abilities. And we have evolved class and gender adaptations such that our moral compasses, our moral intuitions, and our moral preferences and beliefs reflect these biases. The female socialist, male libertarian, and male aristocratic reflect these political biases.
But groups have only three strategies to choose from, and only positive and negative uses of each strategy:
– Predation and parasitism, VS Law of non-predation
– Cheating and Scheming, VS Productive Cooperation
– Rallying and shaming for discounts, VS Rallying and Lauding Producers.
Different groups demonstrate different evolutionary strategies
– Genders employ different evolutionary strategies.
– Classes employ different evolutionary strategies.
– Cultures employ different evolutionary strategies.
– Races employ different evolutionary strategies.
Groups of every scale employ different evolutionary strategies.
But in the final analysis, inferior groups adopt immoral, dysgenic, and parasitic equalitarian strategies including predation, parasitism, cheating and scheming, rallying and shaming; and superior groups adopt moral, eugenic, and productive meritocratic strategies.
We see this worldwide with the aristocratic protestant ethic on one end of the spectrum, the Russians and Chinese in the middle, and the gypsies and Islamists on the other end of the spectrum. In other words: higher trust more eugenic more productive people against lower trust, less productive people.
The ancient and medieval west weaponized the civic commons.
The neo-puritans weaponized pseudoscience and media.
Islam has weaponized reproduction and religion
China weaponized the state/military/bureaucracy
Russia has weaponized state/military/media
The gypsies have weaponized small scale crime.
If we make a long list of peoples throughout history. and it is most often led by a combination of local advantage in production that enables military and political expansion, which either can increase or decrease parasitism – increase or decrease morality. It is just as rational for westerners to advocate meritocracy as it is for Chinese to advocate authority, and Islamists mysticism.
But rationality does not tell us anything about morality. Morality is objective. Some groups are more objectively moral than others. Some strategies more moral than others. In the long term the aristocracy desires to transform man into gods. In the short term the least of us struggle to survive.
But since neither can have his utopia, the only possible means of achieving both survival and transformation of man, is cooperation by voluntary exchange, and to reward those in the lower classes for not creating perpetuating their damage to mankind.
There is only one “ism” in my understanding of the world: and that is that some groups are inferior and some superior, but it is an act of discounting or premium to ask the weak to suffer for the strong, or the aristocracy limit achievement because of the weak. There are no free rides.
The only moral cooperation we can engage in is voluntary exchange.
And it benefits every group to pursue the improvement of the distribution of talents in their groups, even if it means diminution of their absolute numbers. Moreover, it is in the interests of the moral and productive to constrain, punish, and if necessary, kill, those who do not improve the morality of themselves and their kin.
Man must pacify the universe to persist in it. To do that he must first pacify himself. And the history of man, if anything, is the history of pacification – not of violence, but of predation, parasitism, and free riding.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2015-11-06 07:24:00 UTC