Any god should ask only that you provide moral acts in exchange for courage and wisdom. Any god that demands submission and obedience, is not a god but the devil.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-12 12:45:00 UTC
Theme: Responsibility
-
ON POLYGAMY I’ve answered this question repeatedly. So here we go again: (a) the
ON POLYGAMY
I’ve answered this question repeatedly. So here we go again:
(a) the community will not insure it.
(b) the community might ostracize it.
(c) the ostracization is rational since it is not in their kin’s interests, and poses a normative risk to their kin.
(d) there is nothing stopping you from creating a corporation with the identical properties of a marriage EXCEPT for the community insurance of the relationship.
(e) so effectively you trade a decrease in normative social status in exchange for polygamy. And I have no reason to think this is not exactly the optimum condition.
(f) i might argue that such a private contract might have higher value than the marriage contract since it is unregulated.
In other words, IMO, marriage is an ancient natural law contract between a man and a woman for the formation of a corporation of community property that produces offspring who later care for the parents in old age.
Every other relationship is not marriage but a contract that grants:
(a) reciprocal exclusivity of resources of all kinds
(b) reciprocal power of attorney over the community assets including one another.
(c) reciprocal insurance against the vicissitudes of life.
(d) reciprocal insurance of offspring.
The difference being that the community will warranty non interference in the relationship and therefore the contract of marriage, and the community will not warranty the same of the alternative contract, since it is not in the interests of the community to foster these relationships. (no it’s not. sorry).
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-10 20:04:00 UTC
-
“THE TALK” FOR WOMEN —RE: “In priority she is higher for us and her children a
“THE TALK” FOR WOMEN
—RE: “In priority she is higher for us and her children are higher for her.” I Had this fight many times. I am a monster apparently.” — Jerrick Harald
1) I am a man. You are a woman. We are different. We are not the same. We are not equal. We are compatible. In our compatibility we can make each other better and happier than each of us can be alone. We have interests. I have interests. You have interests. We have shared interests. You likely cannot understand many of my interests. I will appreciate your interests. You can only appreciate that my interests that differ from yours are as important to me as those that differ from mine are as important to you. I am a man. I have a man’s interests. And I will devote my time to my interests, you will devote your time to your interests, and we will devote our time to our shared interests. Hopefully we have and we create many shared interests.
2) If you want a woman to live with, get your mother or a sister, or share a home with another woman – one that you will fight with all the time for alpha bitch status. If you want a compliant male to share a home with, to tread your wants first among others, and to treat your children first among all others, then you need to understand that the price of that compliance is a man, and a man is not a woman. So you cannot have the luxury of both a man and a woman unless you can coerce your mother to live with you, since she is the only woman who will not try to dominate you for the benefit of herself and her children – if you’re lucky. I am a man.
3) You women have a tribe of children. We men have a tribe of women and their children. We both gain a tribal monopoly thru marriage. I fight no other men for dominance and priority for sex and affection. You fight no other women for dominance and priority for you and your children. This is the smallest tribe we can both construct under which we are both alphas and both obtain what we require for survival and reproduction.
4) So, I am not a life support system for a vagina or its outputs. I am a man. I assist in making your life better than it would be otherwise; and you assist in making my life better than it would be otherwise. Either a relationship is of continuous value to me, in sex, affection, care, friendship, economic utility, and late life insurance, or it is not. I expect you to find the same.
5) My function as a man, is to provide defense, resources, friendship, affection, care, sex, and to manipulate the exterior world for your benefit in exchange for friendship, affection, care, sex, and your manipulation of the nest for my benefit.
6) I am not a girlfriend. I am a man. I solve problems. I understand facts, not experiences. I gain nothing from experiences – they merely confuse and annoy me. I cannot share many of your feelings, I can only appreciate and respect them. I try to make you happy in exchange for rewards of appreciation. I enjoy making you happy. I listen for ways to make you happy. I prefer if you do not ask me to guess. And I prefer that you ask rather than expect me to remember. And while you train children by reminding, every time you nag me I take it as a criticism not help.
7) This is honestly spoken. This is truth. We can color this truth in romantic promises so that our emotions convey additional weight. However, everything else is just a comforting lie, and comforting lies are a means of obtaining what one desires without paying for it, or constructing a promise that current asymmetries will be paid for with future returns.
8) Women lie for resources and status and men lie for sex. But there is no reason to lie unless we try to obtain an unearned discount.
9) But history illustrates that men are more sentimental and loyal than women in all walks of life. And if you will enter into this agreement with me for the long term, I will enter into it with you for the long term, and I will not break it if you do not break it.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-10 14:50:00 UTC
-
WHAT ABOUT MISTRESSES/LOVERS? Let’s go thru the logic: AFAIK Marriage consists o
WHAT ABOUT MISTRESSES/LOVERS?
Let’s go thru the logic:
AFAIK Marriage consists of the following contractual properties.
1) insurance by the community that they will not interfere in the corporation you have created for the production of offspring, in exchange for not forcing them to pay the cost of paying for your offspring by moral hazard.
2) the right of killing, harming, or demanding restitution from those who interfere in that corporation and create the hazard for the members of the contract, and their offspring.
3) a contract of exclusivity between a man and a woman for sex, affection, care-taking, children, economic cooperation (household cost sharing).
4) Grant of general power of attorney to the spouse in all matters, of property, life, and death
I have no problem with (meaning I don’t seen an argument against) prostitution, call girls, courtiers, or ‘paid’ mistresses (or studs). This poses no threat to the corporation that consists of the family, nor the contract between the community and the members of the corporation.
I am not a fan of unpaid mistresses unless you can easily afford them and the offspring that they produce. Ergo, the difference between polygamy and ‘mistresses’ is arbitrary, other than polygamy means sharing the same household) and paid mistresses not. The question is whether one can create a marriage contract with more than one woman and I think the answer is no, but then we can certainly create ‘lover/mistress’ contracts outside the marriage (or instead of them). And I would prefer we do this rather than continue this nonsensical debate over the redefinition of marriage. We use different corporation structures (c, s, llc, partnerships, sole proprietorships) and there is no reason we cannot create marriages with similar decreasing requirements.
Normatively we required you pay for your legitimate offspring but not your illegitimate. And you continue to pay for your legitimate and illegitimate offspring as a means of retaining the sex and affection of a woman. This provides the correct incentives to all. For a woman she dooms herself and her children to relative poverty, so she keeps men at bay and does not interfere in other marriages. But if she is willing she can gain offspring, sex, and gifts, from superior males. For a man, this means he can pay for sex without incurring responsibility for offspring, or sacrifice his family. Male sex is a need. Female sex is a want. Motherhood is exhausting, and servicing men is an option while servicing children is a necessity. This is the way we evolved.
Moreover, a mistress that you pay for sex and affection is only logical for a man. A woman has access to child’s affection, and a man far less so. Men will kill each other over women and so that’s a different thing. Both a mans and a women’s status is harmed by male infidelity. Risk is increased for the economic unit that is the family.
The french and italian (latin) models seem effective: a lot of extramarital sex in exchange for preservation of the family unit, with the presumption that there are high costs for either embarrassing the spouse and family, or interfering with that relationship. This is possible because of the retention of the intergenerational family (traditional family). Which provides insurance to one another. The traditional family, in turn, is possible because of lower geographic mobility (less big sorting going on), and the retention of older generations in low cost geographies out of the city, and younger generation employment in the high cost cities; the limited use of suburbs rather than family sized urban apartments, and suburban/rural ‘grandparents’ homes. (the germans do this the best it seems.)
Conclusions:
(a) marriage is irreplaceable as a means of long term economic cooperation. You will be more prosperous if married and poorer if unmarried.
(b) a man must produce, in a short time, during his productive phase, sufficient reserves to carry him through late life. He can produce those reserves through investment in family that will care for him in the future, or in capital that will provide care for him in the future. For women, they are much more fungible in society and are lower cost in old age. men specialize and adapt poorly, women generalize and adapt highly.
(c) children always ‘belong’ to a woman unless she is unfit. A man trades sex, affection, care, shared costs, and support in exchange for exclusivity. A woman for the same plus the care for her offspring.
(d) If you interfere in the marriage you demonstrate willingness to take up the costs of the man or woman you seek to replace. In other words, you are liable for damages (which are empirically, quite substantial).
(e) If a marriage dissolution is voluntary, then all exchange and all responsibility, and all corporate relations end. Period. Individuals may negotiate money for access etc if they choose. No child support, no spousal support.
(f) Community property never exists and never can, and never should. End marital community property entirely. Make this a negotiating point in relationships.
(g) Prenup contracts must be the most enforceable contracts of all contracts, without exception.
(h) yes to paid sex and affection. yes to uninsured polygamy (non-marriage). yes to monogamous (insured) marriage. yes to ‘casual encounters’. No to interference in the corporation that insulates the community from the costs of your reproduction.
IMHO these questions are largely irrelevant, because we all fool around quite a bit. The question is only what insurance we provide and what behaviors we demand in order to prevent fooling around producing costs that are imposed upon others.
Empirically, and rationally, the latin model traditional family is superior to the germanic absolute nuclear family. or said differently, the absolute nuclear family is too fragile as a general rule for other than the genetic, cultural, and occupational elite.
History has solved this problem for us by gradual empirical means. If you have a marriage and women who bear children you will survive. If you do not you will be conquered and defeated. If you wish to be conquered and defeated then you may not make that choice for others. And so we must revolt and separate so that those of us who do not wish to be conquered defeated, displaced, and removed from history, and the future, are not conquered, defeated, and displaced by the weak among us.
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law of Reciprocity
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-10 12:32:00 UTC
-
A MANIFESTO FOR THE RETURN TO ARISTOCRACY: YOU LACK COERCIVE POWER OVER YOURSELV
A MANIFESTO FOR THE RETURN TO ARISTOCRACY: YOU LACK COERCIVE POWER OVER YOURSELVES, SO YOU MAY NOT HOLD COERCIVE POWER OVER OTHERS.
The only reason not to kill, enslave, beat, or take from you is if you agree at least to avoid parasitism, and at best to engage in reciprocally rewarding cooperation.
One can walk away in silence, and mind his or her own business, and engage in boycott. This is, at a minimum, a failure to cooperate, and at a maximum, an attempt to separate and form a polity more desirous than the current one. But it is not a violation of reciprocity or sovereignty.
But to engage in ridicule, shaming, rallying, straw men, double standards, conspiracy, propaganda, and advocacy of parasitism to actively violate sovereignty, reciprocity, meritocracy, and the transcendence of man, merely states that we are not longer cooperating, and you are engaging in parasitism and not yet engaging in violence.
As such, as we are no longer cooperating, and you are engaging in parasitism, we no longer possess any incentive other than to engage in predation, including killing, enslaving, punishing, and taking.
The only reason a state allows parasitism, ridicule, shaming, rallying and deceit, is to profit from the creation of conflict by expanding its totalitarian influence over that of reciprocity. The only reason not to kill, enslave, punish, and take from members of the state is if they eliminate means of parasitism, and allow markets to determine reward by merit.
We have no reason any longer, to constrain our violence – violence that we pay the cost of forgoing the use of on a daily if not hourly basis, for the purpose of improving the lot of ourselves, our families, our kin, our nation, and mankind, by the imposition of sovereignty and the incremental evolution of agency.
We spent over a century giving you license to join the aristocracy of meritocracy that constitutes western civilization. You have proven that you are unfit for that membership in the peerage of the sovereign. You lack agency, morality, ethical ability, character necessary for treatment as equal: as sovereigns, and therefore as ‘humans’. You are still an animal, unfit for subsidy, freedom, liberty or sovereignty.
Our experiment was moral, ethical, and pursued out of honest belief in your ability. And our experiment failed. And so we return to our traditional rule, by and return you to domesticated animal conditions.
We could blame you. But you are just animals. You lack the personal agency and the genetic sufficiency, to join the world of sovereign men.
We will grant you protections under natural law, since you are capable, if disciplined, of cooperation.
But you shall no longer hold coercive powers over others, because by your words and deeds, you demonstrably, lack the coercive power over yourselves.
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law of Sovereigns
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Industrialization of Agency
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-08 08:01:00 UTC
-
Moral (Usage)
MORAL (USAGE) The term “Moral” can be used in a specific sense or a general sense. Either as behavior that imposes costs anonymously and indirectly, or as a general term to refer to all moral, ethical, and criminal behavior. Specific: 0) In the series criminal, ethical, and moral, criminal refers to overt crimes, ethical to crimes of interpersonal informational asymmetry (crimes against a person you deal with), and moral to indirect crimes of informational asymmetry (crimes against the social order). General: 1) Objective (decidable) morality: non imposition / reciprocity 2) Normative morality: that portfolio of norms that in the aggregate produce a group evolutionary strategy, and therefore immoral and moral actions may be judged objectively or normatively. 3) Subjective moral intuitions: that moral intuition we possess because of the combination of genetics, environment and training, and our attempt to survive genetic , social, and economic competition. These may be judged normatively and objectively. 4) Fictional Morality: those wishful arguments we make.. etc. These may be judged subjectively, normatively, and objectively.
-
Moral (Usage)
MORAL (USAGE) The term “Moral” can be used in a specific sense or a general sense. Either as behavior that imposes costs anonymously and indirectly, or as a general term to refer to all moral, ethical, and criminal behavior. Specific: 0) In the series criminal, ethical, and moral, criminal refers to overt crimes, ethical to crimes of interpersonal informational asymmetry (crimes against a person you deal with), and moral to indirect crimes of informational asymmetry (crimes against the social order). General: 1) Objective (decidable) morality: non imposition / reciprocity 2) Normative morality: that portfolio of norms that in the aggregate produce a group evolutionary strategy, and therefore immoral and moral actions may be judged objectively or normatively. 3) Subjective moral intuitions: that moral intuition we possess because of the combination of genetics, environment and training, and our attempt to survive genetic , social, and economic competition. These may be judged normatively and objectively. 4) Fictional Morality: those wishful arguments we make.. etc. These may be judged subjectively, normatively, and objectively.
-
Answering Practical Questions on Law
—“The world’s first murderer stands before a common law court. No applicable statute or precedent. How is law made?”— By Natural Law: reciprocity. The violation of reciprocity by aggression against life, body, mate, kin, property, interest. In history, common law developed to prevent reciprocity (retaliation), because of retaliation cycles. (Feuds) States imposed uniform laws once people came into conflict between groups. And if one ‘group’s punishments were too different from the others retaliation cycles would ensue (Feuds). —“Can you define reciprocity?”— Reciprocity is just the promise of doing unto others only as one would have done unto you; and not doing unto others that which you would not have done unto you. But once this is broken how do we restore a condition of reciprocity? We do so by restitution. –“Does restitution necessitate capital punishment?”– Technically it is impossible to perform restitution for murder except with capital punishment. However, in most cases it is possible to pay a high price for murder. And people generally have been forced to pay a high price depending upon the status of the killer and killed. But, in the end, the real reason we use capital punishment is because if someone will break the last rule, the one-rule, of not murdering, then they must be eliminated from the group. —“Standardization means that a superior authority is set?”— Not sure what you mean. Not authority, but decidability. Natural law is decidable. It’s perfectly decidable in all cases, everywhere, at all times, between all people. We can define restitution regardless of opinion or preference of members – in order to maintain ‘the peace’ (the rewards of cooperation). Natural law means people can’t prey upon each other. That is different from a standard. As far as I know that’s a truth. It’s just science. We don’t get to choose. Two people or parties can settle their differences however they want as long as the settlement of differences does not export harm or risk to others. but if we are asked or forced to resolve a conflict, we can do so by natural law regardless of our individual opinions. ––“If natural law means we can’t prey on each other, is it not a priori? Or is it empirically discovered as a function of the rewards of not preying?”— Well you know asking that question is fallacious. The apriori is simply a trivial case of the empirical, and the empirical merely a trivial case of the scientific. It’s observable, it’s logical, it’s possible, it’s demonstrable, and it’s thoroughly demonstrated – and moreover it’s actually impossible to contradict rationally. (You can’t even try to contradict it without confirming it.) I mean, we are part of the physical universe, despite our ability to outwit it on a regular basis through the use of sense, perception, memory, prediction, reason. If an organism tolerates parasitism and predation why does it do so? If an organism can cooperate, and cooperation produces extraordinary returns, and parasitism disincentivizes cooperation, and deprives an organism of returns, then what adaptation must an organism evolve in order to preserve cooperation? Just what we see: altruistic punishment (costly retaliation). Because even though retaliation is costly, the cumulative parasitism is much more costly, and possibly deadly. Any organism that can cooperate and becomes dependent upon cooperation cannot survive significant non-cooperation. However, some minimum of non-cooperation is necessary in order to preserve the incentive to preserve the instinct to punish parasites. And some minimum non-cooperation is necessary to provide evolutionary routes to superiority that may be integrated into the whole.
-
Answering Practical Questions on Law
—“The world’s first murderer stands before a common law court. No applicable statute or precedent. How is law made?”— By Natural Law: reciprocity. The violation of reciprocity by aggression against life, body, mate, kin, property, interest. In history, common law developed to prevent reciprocity (retaliation), because of retaliation cycles. (Feuds) States imposed uniform laws once people came into conflict between groups. And if one ‘group’s punishments were too different from the others retaliation cycles would ensue (Feuds). —“Can you define reciprocity?”— Reciprocity is just the promise of doing unto others only as one would have done unto you; and not doing unto others that which you would not have done unto you. But once this is broken how do we restore a condition of reciprocity? We do so by restitution. –“Does restitution necessitate capital punishment?”– Technically it is impossible to perform restitution for murder except with capital punishment. However, in most cases it is possible to pay a high price for murder. And people generally have been forced to pay a high price depending upon the status of the killer and killed. But, in the end, the real reason we use capital punishment is because if someone will break the last rule, the one-rule, of not murdering, then they must be eliminated from the group. —“Standardization means that a superior authority is set?”— Not sure what you mean. Not authority, but decidability. Natural law is decidable. It’s perfectly decidable in all cases, everywhere, at all times, between all people. We can define restitution regardless of opinion or preference of members – in order to maintain ‘the peace’ (the rewards of cooperation). Natural law means people can’t prey upon each other. That is different from a standard. As far as I know that’s a truth. It’s just science. We don’t get to choose. Two people or parties can settle their differences however they want as long as the settlement of differences does not export harm or risk to others. but if we are asked or forced to resolve a conflict, we can do so by natural law regardless of our individual opinions. ––“If natural law means we can’t prey on each other, is it not a priori? Or is it empirically discovered as a function of the rewards of not preying?”— Well you know asking that question is fallacious. The apriori is simply a trivial case of the empirical, and the empirical merely a trivial case of the scientific. It’s observable, it’s logical, it’s possible, it’s demonstrable, and it’s thoroughly demonstrated – and moreover it’s actually impossible to contradict rationally. (You can’t even try to contradict it without confirming it.) I mean, we are part of the physical universe, despite our ability to outwit it on a regular basis through the use of sense, perception, memory, prediction, reason. If an organism tolerates parasitism and predation why does it do so? If an organism can cooperate, and cooperation produces extraordinary returns, and parasitism disincentivizes cooperation, and deprives an organism of returns, then what adaptation must an organism evolve in order to preserve cooperation? Just what we see: altruistic punishment (costly retaliation). Because even though retaliation is costly, the cumulative parasitism is much more costly, and possibly deadly. Any organism that can cooperate and becomes dependent upon cooperation cannot survive significant non-cooperation. However, some minimum of non-cooperation is necessary in order to preserve the incentive to preserve the instinct to punish parasites. And some minimum non-cooperation is necessary to provide evolutionary routes to superiority that may be integrated into the whole.
-
It Makes Sense
—Those who function by gossip and rallying will of course suppress all language that violates gossip, the same way that those of us who function by property and responsibility will of course suppress all action that violates property.— Curt Doolittle