Criminality Is Genetic and Dysgenia Is an Institutional Failure https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/29/criminality-is-genetic-and-dysgenia-is-an-institutional-failure-2/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-29 21:35:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266483325755101187
Mar 2, 2020, 11:48 AM
—“No. Steven Pinker explained this very well. If parenting had an effect at all, it would turn up in the shared environment. It doesn’t.”—JayMan @JayMan471 —“How do you explain single mothers parenting vastly increasing incarceration and unsocial behaviour.”— tweeter
1) Mothers do not remarry(control, infantilization) or permit others to parent, fathers do. 2) Single mothers don’t cohabit with grandparents as substitute. 3) Single mothers transfer insecurity to children (instability) 4) Increase in female psychosis under feminism. Tolerance?
—“None of those things.”—JayMan@JayMan471
What is it instead? 😉 b/c those things compensated for class (genetic) differences. Which is what I assume you’re going to say. Add: 5) school environment exacerbates. 6) pharmaceuticals (and drugs) exacerbate. 7) recent evidence (female) social media. 8) increase in under-lower class size. So, one can say: 9) increase in anti social behavior. 10) increase in population with it. 11) increase prosecution of it. Edit: ( 11a. in class sortition bc of colleges, and concentrating dysgenia at the bottom – this one is important. ) or 12) decrease in institutional means of compensating for it, suppressing it, and preventing it with marriage, family, community, norm, tradition, and institution. And we can frame the question: (a) are we more aware of it? (b) is there more of it (decline)? (c) are there more people biasing it (population)? (d) are informal and formal institutions no longer controlling it? (e) environmental factors (as w/ lead) (f) all of the above. I read the same papers everyone else does. the disputes are generally categorized as misinterpretation of the top down correlative and categorical; bottom up constructive and individual; and incentives in the constructive that test both. Unfortunately, full accounting is rare. So, to deal with pinker’s assertion that it’s purely genetic, sure. The question then is whether we are just more aware of it, just prosecute it more, increasing dysgenia, or we are failing to mask it with institutions. ie: My original comment’s suggestion: institutions failing. And again, when Jayman disagrees with me it’s because he jumps to the conclusion that I’m making an argument that I am not. 😉 The argument is: Institutional failure. Because dysgenia at present is caused by institutional failure. All of these causes are institutional failures.
Mar 2, 2020, 11:48 AM
—“No. Steven Pinker explained this very well. If parenting had an effect at all, it would turn up in the shared environment. It doesn’t.”—JayMan @JayMan471 —“How do you explain single mothers parenting vastly increasing incarceration and unsocial behaviour.”— tweeter
1) Mothers do not remarry(control, infantilization) or permit others to parent, fathers do. 2) Single mothers don’t cohabit with grandparents as substitute. 3) Single mothers transfer insecurity to children (instability) 4) Increase in female psychosis under feminism. Tolerance?
—“None of those things.”—JayMan@JayMan471
What is it instead? 😉 b/c those things compensated for class (genetic) differences. Which is what I assume you’re going to say. Add: 5) school environment exacerbates. 6) pharmaceuticals (and drugs) exacerbate. 7) recent evidence (female) social media. 8) increase in under-lower class size. So, one can say: 9) increase in anti social behavior. 10) increase in population with it. 11) increase prosecution of it. Edit: ( 11a. in class sortition bc of colleges, and concentrating dysgenia at the bottom – this one is important. ) or 12) decrease in institutional means of compensating for it, suppressing it, and preventing it with marriage, family, community, norm, tradition, and institution. And we can frame the question: (a) are we more aware of it? (b) is there more of it (decline)? (c) are there more people biasing it (population)? (d) are informal and formal institutions no longer controlling it? (e) environmental factors (as w/ lead) (f) all of the above. I read the same papers everyone else does. the disputes are generally categorized as misinterpretation of the top down correlative and categorical; bottom up constructive and individual; and incentives in the constructive that test both. Unfortunately, full accounting is rare. So, to deal with pinker’s assertion that it’s purely genetic, sure. The question then is whether we are just more aware of it, just prosecute it more, increasing dysgenia, or we are failing to mask it with institutions. ie: My original comment’s suggestion: institutions failing. And again, when Jayman disagrees with me it’s because he jumps to the conclusion that I’m making an argument that I am not. 😉 The argument is: Institutional failure. Because dysgenia at present is caused by institutional failure. All of these causes are institutional failures.
Advanced P-Law of Commons: Responsibility https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/29/advanced-p-law-of-commons-responsibility/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-29 12:48:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266350601635540992
Mar 7, 2020, 5:35 PM
—” I’m curious how P-law would handle the harmful nature drugs involve, without stamping on freedom of the individual to grow and learn from making mistakes… and what about drugs that stradle a line between medical necessity, and potential for abuse like opioids or amphetamine. … And the third aspect of the question would be: what about drugs like psychedelics, that might hold great value for both therapeutics and also potential for cognitive and spiritual enhancement without much risk to physical health? ….How would a propertarian society manage these risks and issues with adult maturity and intelligence, while avoiding descending into the unproductive chaos like we have in the current drug laws? Just curious if an answer to these questions has yet been formulated…”— NJ Gregory
If it’s not in the commons it’s not a problem OF the commons.If it becomes a problem of the commons then it’s a problem of the commons. Drug use itself is a commons (common property of demonstrated interest) for those who use drugs. If users constrain each other such that the users’ commons doesn’t influence the broader commons then that’s not a problem. If not then it is. In other words, it’s up to the ‘market’ to control its effect on the commons or to lose their commons for having not done so. This is the answer to almost every seemingly difficult question. The problem is the unwillingness of members of risky commons to police their property. That’s why drugs are outlawed. Because they remove the agency of the user, and produce malincentives for the distributor. This is another way of saying all groups in which one has an interest and obtains a value also transfers to one a liability for the group one sustains. Ergo: collective punishment exists, we just don’t speak of it honestly. If we did, then we would cause say, certain religions to control their members or lose the entire religion and all members.
Mar 7, 2020, 5:35 PM
—” I’m curious how P-law would handle the harmful nature drugs involve, without stamping on freedom of the individual to grow and learn from making mistakes… and what about drugs that stradle a line between medical necessity, and potential for abuse like opioids or amphetamine. … And the third aspect of the question would be: what about drugs like psychedelics, that might hold great value for both therapeutics and also potential for cognitive and spiritual enhancement without much risk to physical health? ….How would a propertarian society manage these risks and issues with adult maturity and intelligence, while avoiding descending into the unproductive chaos like we have in the current drug laws? Just curious if an answer to these questions has yet been formulated…”— NJ Gregory
If it’s not in the commons it’s not a problem OF the commons.If it becomes a problem of the commons then it’s a problem of the commons. Drug use itself is a commons (common property of demonstrated interest) for those who use drugs. If users constrain each other such that the users’ commons doesn’t influence the broader commons then that’s not a problem. If not then it is. In other words, it’s up to the ‘market’ to control its effect on the commons or to lose their commons for having not done so. This is the answer to almost every seemingly difficult question. The problem is the unwillingness of members of risky commons to police their property. That’s why drugs are outlawed. Because they remove the agency of the user, and produce malincentives for the distributor. This is another way of saying all groups in which one has an interest and obtains a value also transfers to one a liability for the group one sustains. Ergo: collective punishment exists, we just don’t speak of it honestly. If we did, then we would cause say, certain religions to control their members or lose the entire religion and all members.
Pot affects the commons https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/29/pot-affects-the-commons/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-29 12:41:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266348904263663619
Mar 8, 2020, 1:34 PM Pot affects the commons for certain, and we still don’t know whether it’s good or not, and how to judge it. It decreases awareness, aggression, agency, and reproduction. Combined with pornography and continuous sedation by entertainment produces detachment on a scale not seen since the opium wars. That said we are currently running an experiment in self sedation that appears to perform the same function as Soma without state intervention. If it makes people tolerate modernity so that they can continue to be ruled, exploited, displaced, replaced, and conquered, then it will have done what we predicted it would. If not for democracy I would welcome it because it provides mindfulness and a docile underclass and working class population that all rulers seek.
In P-Law Whose Money Do You Want to Waste? https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/29/in-p-law-whose-money-do-you-want-to-waste/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-29 01:18:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266177046465708032
Mar 9, 2020, 1:28 PM
—“I think an interesting idea as a prerequisite to being able to take someone to court for a violation of reciprocity under P-law would be the requirement that they show up to court “in propria persona” or “pro se,” or more succinctly, no more attorneys. Don’t kill them as Shakespeare suggested, just make it unlawful for them to show up in court except to represent themselves and their own interests.”—
(good). Or go the other way: use the british method of a barrister, which won’t take a case from solicitor(lawyer) unless it has merit. So in the british model they have, in our terms, professional prosecutors for both sides. In america we have a lot of lawyers and a few prosecutors. It’s more ‘common law’ to take your route. It requires more judges with more skill but yes it will work. I’m not settled on the more adversarial american, or the less dishonest british. What I like about your position is that it’s cheap. What I like about their position is that it’s expensive. I think the judge-judy shows of the world illustrate how ignorant the public is of their own wrong doing. So it depends on whose time we want to waste on idiots: their own money with lawyers, or our money with the court’s.