“In my opinion, the central goal of Judeo-Christian ethics is to nurture a community within which adults can recreate the happiness of childhood.” – Kenneth Allen Hopf
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-22 12:59:00 UTC
“In my opinion, the central goal of Judeo-Christian ethics is to nurture a community within which adults can recreate the happiness of childhood.” – Kenneth Allen Hopf
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-22 12:59:00 UTC
http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/16/its-a-mans-world-and-it-always-will-be/#ixzz2nev5pBy8″ROLLICK UNCONSTRAINED BY RELIGIOUS AND FEMINIST MORALISM”
“In today’s punitive atmosphere of sentimental propaganda about gender, the sexual imagination has understandably fled into the alternate world of online pornography, where the rude but exhilarating forces of primitive nature rollick unconstrained by religious or feminist moralism.”
Read more: It’s a Man’s World, And It Always Will Be | TIME.com http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/16/its-a-mans-world-and-it-always-will-be/#ixzz2nev5pBy8″
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-16 12:15:00 UTC
PUTIN ON MORALITY
“This destruction of traditional values from above not only entails negative consequences for society, but is also inherently anti-democratic because it is based on an abstract notion and runs counter to the will of the majority of people,” Mr Putin said, adding “there could be no benefit for society for treating ‘good and evil’ equally.”
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-12 15:32:00 UTC
WHAT IF THE ARABS ARE RIGHT?
What if, Arabic Paternalism under Islam, is not the most backward reproductive family system – but in fact, the most mature? What if, as others have suggested, the Greeks invented inbreeding to keep property in the family as a reaction to the disintegrating state amidst urban diversity? And the arabs adopted it as part of their conquest of the eastern roman empire?
What if an individualistic, highly distributed division of labor and a mobile work force, is a reproductive ‘dead end’?
And that ‘their way’, with all it’s defects, is in fact, the natural course of all cultures as they mature?
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-12 12:52:00 UTC
THE SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EUROPEAN JEWISH AND EUROPEAN PROTESTANT ETHICS
Similarities between Ashkenazi and Northern European (Protestant) ethics: both the extended model of the jewish community, and the aristocratic ethics of the Northern European community, place onerous burdens on non-conforming, uncompetitive members, and force them out of the community where they will either reproduce elsewhere or reproduce poorly.
Then eugenic result of these reproductive strategies is still evident in the Ashkenazi jewish population, and at least evident in the middle and upper classes of protestant civilization – although, if Lynn is correct, we protestants have lost intellectual parity with the jews over the past 150 years because we ceased our constraint on the reproduction of the lower classes and weakened our high investment parenting (and the state actively prohibits it via public education), while the jews continue their high investment parenting.
Then major difference in these ethical systems is that the scope of Northern European (North Sea / Protestant) ethic contains the warrior constraints which have a higher standard of prohibition on externality than the Ashkenazi, which in turn has a higher standard of prohibition, and more outcasting than the eastern european, mediterranean, and middle eastern.
1) Requirement of fully asymmetric information in an exchange.
2) Requirement of warranty to prove symmetry of exchange.
3) Prohibition against externalization of costs.
4) Requirement for value added to goods.
5) Prohibition on profit from disadvantage.
In addition:
6) Requirement of contribution to the physical commons.
7) Requirement for militia service in exchange for membership.
These ethical extensions are caused by the origins of these two peoples as an homogenous majority of land holders in the cast of northern europeans, and a homogenous minority of diasporic non-land holders in the case of the european jews. Majoritarian Militial Warriors and Minority of diasporic, unlanded traders develop very different needs.
All ethical systems must reflect reproductive necessity. What is perhaps most interesting is that by the time we enter the 20th century, the difference between Scottish presbyterians and european jews was indistinguishable by other than trinket symbolism and surname.
It was the introduction of eastern european jews that increased 20th century domestic friction, which is now, only three generations later, accommodating. I think McDonald has pretty much settled the case on this topic. It is what it is. We each need our reproductive strategies to survive.
I get a little flack for my criticism of Rothbard’s ethics as the failed attempt to reconcile the ethics of european aristocratic egalitarian liberty with Jewish ethics of the diasporic peoples. But the point of my argument is a necessary one. I cannot repair the ethics of liberty without correcting the properties of those ethics by expanding those set of ethical constraints to reflect the aristocratic high trust society.
Because it is that high trust society that makes northern europeans unique in the world.
Just as I get quite a bit of flack for attacking the assumption that feminist ambitions can be perpetuated without the near universal adherence to the absolute nuclear family.
Just as I get quite a bit of flack for attacking the libertarian movement as autistically blind to moral diversity, and our attempt to assert moral monopoly on human cooperation. Morals must reflect reproductive needs, at least within groups, even if the only moral constraint between groups is can bear no difference between private property rights.
I just get flack for these arguments. But the fact is that they are simply true. Its just objective. Our reproductive strategies determine our ethical codes.
I cannot recommend institutional solutions to the problem of cooperation in a morally heterogeneous polity absent a tyrannical state unless I make it also clear that these reproductives strategies are rational, and moral for their adherents. It is not rational that individuals should prefer strategies and moral codes that are against their reproductive interests.
So, as always, I apologize in advance for the murder of sacred cows, but it’s necessary for mutual benefit.
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-10 10:51:00 UTC
BTC: A GOLDEN CALF
I’m begin to see Bitcoin as a libertarian golden calf.
—
(Maybe I need to go find a bush, set it afire, and pull out some rhetorical tablets. But nah… people hate it when you expose their gods.)
(Sigh.)
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-10 08:49:00 UTC
WHAT THE H___ IS WRONG WITH MISES INSTITUTE?
Rhetorical question. I know the answer.
–Give. Up. On. The. Jewish. Model–
It’s a proven failure. It hasn’t worked for the jews. It’s let do their persecution. The public hates it because they intuit correctly that it’s immoral. And logically it can’t work. We must pay high costs to hold land and create property rights, and Rothbard all but ignored moral costs, just like progressives do. Moral and social capital are the most important wealth that all material wealth drives from.
I mean, are you stuck in 1965 or something? Beat the dead horse? Beat it some more? Do you feel that you’ve vanquished the dead horse?
It’s like some kid with a paper hat and cardboard sword standing over his sister’s teddy bear. I mean, the family will clap at the charade and all, but you can’t really keep grasping at childhood faux heroism.
Socialism is a non issue. Marxism is a non issue. We are facing state CORPORATISM, not some WW2 Era philosophy. Where marxists failed, Postmodernists and Totalitarian humanists have succeeded by redefining morality – even while consumer capitalism has succeeded.
GIVE IT UP. ROTHBARD FAILED. JOIN THE 21ST CENTURY.
Do you wanna know why you can’t raise money? Wrong century. The source of liberty was always and only aristocratic egalitarianism. They invented it the nurtured and evolved it. And they spread it around the world. Property is a construct. It is made. And it is made by an armed militia who demands it at the point of a blade or the barrel of a gun.
But it wasn’t articulated,it wasn’t written down as a system, which is why it remained dynamic. And Aristocratic peoples (conservatives) still don’t understand it.
No high-trust people desirous of liberty will ever accept Rothbard’s ethics. EVER, because they are in fact, the immoral ethics of the high-fraud low-trust society. PERIOD. They are the ethics of the bazaar and the ghetto. It’s an outright lie, and now a demonstrated empirical falsehood, that market forces are sufficient to suppress fraud, fraud by omission, externalization of costs, free riding and various rent seeking schemes too numerous to mention.
MOVE FORWARD. LEAVE THE LOW TRUST SOCIETY BEHIND.
I moved on because I realized it’s not possible to help you.
You need to move on too, before you can’t raise a dime.
The market has tested and discarded the ideology.
The market has proven it a failure.
Move on.
Otherwise thirty years plus of hard work will have been wasted.
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-09 11:54:00 UTC
The Jewish Way : Insular Communities that survive in host countries.
The Christian way : Use religion as a resistance movement
The Pre-Christian Way : Violently impose freedom.
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-06 09:38:00 UTC
THE 20TH CENTURY AS AN AGE OF MYSTICISM
You know, sitting here, reading a Engels, written in 1884, it’s pretty clear that it has only been, perhaps, since maybe, what, 1990, or maybe 2000, or maybe the milestone was Pinker’s 2002 book The Blank Slate, that the era of progressive and postmodern mysticism has begun to fade.
The conservatives, the marxists, the postmodernists, all the political nonsense that was constructed in the 20th century as for the purpose of using mass media to persuade a large ignorant population to transfer power to the state. Hell, the nonsense we libertarians came up with for the same reason is just as frustrating. Or it would be if we weren’t the only people on the planet who actually contributed anything to the advancement of political theory since the enlightenment.
Terrifying.
Hayek was right. Looking back on it, the 20th century, or at least, starting with the works of freud, marx and cantor, and maturing into the 20th century, became an age of mysticism.
It took only from Darwin to Marx to create economic obscurantism (experiences rather than necessities), and to Freud to convert from mystical obscurantism to psychological obscurantism (experiences rather than causes), and to Cantor to create mathematical mysticism (sizes rather than frequencies). Of course, the culprit is Kant, who could not bear that economics and individuals could determine status, so he invented a new irrationalism. But Hegel and Heidegger gave academia license to create more obscurantism.
It’s terrifying.
And I just stumbled on Hoppe. Damn. Lucky for me.
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-03 17:25:00 UTC
THE INSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM CHILD WAS THE CALIPHATE. WHY?
“The endogamous [inbred] family is found predominantly in the middle east and north Africa” – Auke Rijpma and Sarah Carmichael “Testing Todd: global data on family characteristics” (2003)
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-03 16:25:00 UTC