The “Kennedy Solution” is the most humiliating for a traitor. You gradually kill off their progeny, then the father, leaving only the mother to suffer as an example to future generations.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-09 06:57:00 UTC
Theme: Responsibility
-
***There is a vast difference between convenience and conviction, between discou
***There is a vast difference between convenience and conviction, between discount and premium. Between action and excuse for inaction. Should’s, requests, demands, are a convenience by which to obscure a discount, by justifying inaction – and creating a theft from one’s ancestors, one’s peers and all generations that might follow. And so there is plenty rope and pyre for such liars, cheaters, and thieves as well. Act, or perish at the hands of those who do.***
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-07 02:14:00 UTC
-
RECIPROCAL INSURANCE —“The Salic Law outlines a unique way of securing the pay
RECIPROCAL INSURANCE
—“The Salic Law outlines a unique way of securing the payment of money owed. It is called the Chrenecruda (or crenecruda, chren ceude, crinnecruda).[21] In cases where the debtor could not pay back a loan in full they were forced to clear out everything from their home. If the debt still could not be paid off the owner could collect dust from all four corners of the house and cross the threshold. The debtor then turned and face the house with their next of kin gathered behind them. The debtor threw the dust over their shoulder. The person (or persons) that the dust fell upon was then responsible for the payment of the debt. The process continued through the family until the debt was paid. Chrenecruda helped secure loans within the Frankish society. It intertwined the loosely gathered tribes and helped to establish government authority. The process made a single person part of a whole group.”—
Hence we make people responsible for the actions of their group.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-03 09:45:00 UTC
-
THREE PARABLES (by William L. Benge) THE ADULT AND THE FAMILY PURSE If a mother,
THREE PARABLES
(by William L. Benge)
THE ADULT AND THE FAMILY PURSE
If a mother, given food money, comes home with a new red dress instead of the family’s groceries, the youngest children may not sense the significance of it. Probably the older children would understand, and feel some angst. And certainly, the husband understands. And is concerned. With the conversations that ensue between the parents, all but the very young children will initially grasp the mother’s impropriety and consequences.
Remedy? The father must pay a visit to the merchant, use his powers of persuasion to return the dress, and then proceed to spend those funds on needed groceries.
This is an anecdote, a metaphor for our own times.
THE TODDLERS
Westerners steeped in the lunacy of progressivism (pseudoscience/marxism) are blind to harm created by their child-like overly simplistic outlook: only when faced with immediate hunger or similar dire consequences will the truth about irresponsible actions register and matter.
Conservatives will have to use core arguments to make any headway with this ideological demographic. Except that regards such core arguments, sadly; conservatives do not yet possess or are not broadly aware of them.
That’s a problem.
THE PERSUADER
Determined to achieve the single desired outcome, the father may have to pull out all stops and place all options on the table in his negotiations with the merchant; which — who knows? — might have to include legal or physical warfare.
One thing is clear in his mind. He will do all within his power to watch after, care for and feed his children. Even if it means protecting them against a deviant mother.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-03 05:44:00 UTC
-
“THE ADULT AND THE FAMILY PURSE – A PARABLE If a mother, given food money, comes
—“THE ADULT AND THE FAMILY PURSE – A PARABLE
If a mother, given food money, comes home with a new red dress instead of the family’s groceries, the youngest children may not sense the significance of it. Probably the older children would understand, and feel some angst. And certainly, the husband understands. And is concerned. With the conversations that ensue between the parents, all but the very young children will initially grasp the mother’s impropriety and consequences. Remedy? The father must pay a visit to the merchant, use his powers of persuasion to return the dress, and then proceed to spend those funds on needed groceries. This parable is informative for men of the current era.”— William William L. Benge
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-03 05:41:00 UTC
-
“Nietzche: Man is a tortured being trapped between god and beast” Doolittle: Man
“Nietzche: Man is a tortured being trapped between god and beast”
Doolittle: Man is a purely rational actor having to constantly choose between the short personal gratification at the expense of others and long term gratification through cooperation with others. With the optimum solution for both short and long term is to achieve personal perfection without causing retaliation by others that would destroy those ambitions.
Most of us struggle in one way or another with the constant problem of achievement without causing retaliation (rejection, resistance, restitution, punishment).
And at the same time we struggle with internal impulse and the impatient desire to achieve our ends and the frustration of having to worry about others rather than only the self.
Nietzche uses romantic, poetic, narrative language to make this rather boring statement of cooperative economics. But by using that ancient primitive poetic language he fails to inform us as to the cause. And given that cause how to succeed.
Hence why I say that Nietzche and propertarianism are compatible. The question is WHICH IS MORE ACTIONABLE? Read him for inspiration and integration with your soul. Choose Propertarianism as the means of achieving it.
In retrospect I see my work as succeeding where spencer failed. We had Darwin and Nietzche, but because of competition from the ‘new age’ provided by marx economically pseudoscientifiic and immoral Marx and immoral and correlative pseudoscientific keynes, the generation that included Spencer, pareto, weber and durkheim, and the generation that included Mises, Popper, Hayek, Brouwer, and Bridgman all failed.
THey failed for the same reason the Greeks failed: they worked from the position of virtue and morality (contribution to commons) instead of simply grasping the reductio simplicity of man: we are all rational actors and choose cooperation when beneficial, and non-cooperation when it is beneficial, and we judge all our actions by the cost vs the likely return, given our experience. Man is not moral per se, he just evolved intuitions to assist him if he DOES wish to act morally because it is in his interest, and he must be cautioned that he will incur retaliation if he acts immorally by imposing costs upon others.
So we understand man’s behavior as purely rational, and moral intuitions as warnings that we are likely to incurr retaliation for our actions.
Source date (UTC): 2016-06-26 03:02:00 UTC
-
A Letter to a Philosophical Excuse Maker
LETTER TO A PHILOSOPHICAL EXCUSE-MAKER You see, you can build whatever contraption you want for your own use. You can practice whatever hobby that you want in your own home. You can say anything you want in your own living room. You can satisfy anyone willing in your bedroom. But you cannot sell a product without responsibility for the consequences it may cause. You cannot sell a service without responsibility for the service you provide and consequences you cause.
So why is it that you may speak without regard for the consequences of your speech? We already limit hazards. We already limit libel, slander, and the disclosure of information. Free speech was included in our laws only because we did not know how to determine what was truthful speech in the constitutional era. But that is because of greek folly – we did not understand the difference between exploratory public speech and critical public testimony. Now we do. We know that truthful speech is not in fact an act of speaking the truth, but of warranty by due diligence that we do not speak falsehood, and do no harm. Ergo, I know you do not speak the truth, and I know your words do harm. that does not mean that if you spoke in concrete recommendations that those recommendations would be immoral. It means that you do not speak in concrete recommendations, and instead that you are attempting to produce psychological rewards by expanding the number of those who speak the same fantasy story. This is called the “social construction of reality”. a postmodern technique whereby speakers use experiential terminology of non-causal construction to obscure their intent to decieve. And that is what you are engaged in. We cannot object to correspondent social construction of reality because truth by definition cannot produce a harm – only a correction. But we can object to non-correspondent construction of reality because it harms others, and by consequence the commons. Why you cannot pollute air, water, and land, is the same reason you cannot pollute information. They are commons. And your comforting lies do those commons harm Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
A Letter to a Philosophical Excuse Maker
LETTER TO A PHILOSOPHICAL EXCUSE-MAKER You see, you can build whatever contraption you want for your own use. You can practice whatever hobby that you want in your own home. You can say anything you want in your own living room. You can satisfy anyone willing in your bedroom. But you cannot sell a product without responsibility for the consequences it may cause. You cannot sell a service without responsibility for the service you provide and consequences you cause.
So why is it that you may speak without regard for the consequences of your speech? We already limit hazards. We already limit libel, slander, and the disclosure of information. Free speech was included in our laws only because we did not know how to determine what was truthful speech in the constitutional era. But that is because of greek folly – we did not understand the difference between exploratory public speech and critical public testimony. Now we do. We know that truthful speech is not in fact an act of speaking the truth, but of warranty by due diligence that we do not speak falsehood, and do no harm. Ergo, I know you do not speak the truth, and I know your words do harm. that does not mean that if you spoke in concrete recommendations that those recommendations would be immoral. It means that you do not speak in concrete recommendations, and instead that you are attempting to produce psychological rewards by expanding the number of those who speak the same fantasy story. This is called the “social construction of reality”. a postmodern technique whereby speakers use experiential terminology of non-causal construction to obscure their intent to decieve. And that is what you are engaged in. We cannot object to correspondent social construction of reality because truth by definition cannot produce a harm – only a correction. But we can object to non-correspondent construction of reality because it harms others, and by consequence the commons. Why you cannot pollute air, water, and land, is the same reason you cannot pollute information. They are commons. And your comforting lies do those commons harm Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
LETTER TO A PHILOSOPHICAL EXCUSE-MAKER You see, you can build whatever contrapti
LETTER TO A PHILOSOPHICAL EXCUSE-MAKER
You see, you can build whatever contraption you want for your own use. You can practice whatever hobby that you want in your own home. You can say anything you want in your own living room. You can satisfy anyone willing in your bedroom.
But you cannot sell a product without responsibility for the consequences it may cause. You cannot sell a service without responsibility for the service you provide and consequences you cause.
So why is it that you may speak without regard for the consequences of your speech? We already limit hazards. We already limit libel, slander, and the disclosure of information.
Free speech was included in our laws only because we did not know how to determine what was truthful speech in the constitutional era.
But that is because of greek folly – we did not understand the difference between exploratory public speech and critical public testimony.
Now we do. We know that truthful speech is not in fact an act of speaking the truth, but of warranty by due diligence that we do not speak falsehood, and do no harm.
Ergo, I know you do not speak the truth, and I know your words do harm. that does not mean that if you spoke in concrete recommendations that those recommendations would be immoral. It means that you do not speak in concrete recommendations, and instead that you are attempting to produce psychological rewards by expanding the number of those who speak the same fantasy story.
This is called the “social construction of reality”. a postmodern technique whereby speakers use experiential terminology of non-causal construction to obscure their intent to decieve. And that is what you are engaged in.
We cannot object to correspondent social construction of reality because truth by definition cannot produce a harm – only a correction.
But we can object to non-correspondent construction of reality because it harms others, and by consequence the commons.
Why you cannot pollute air, water, and land, is the same reason you cannot pollute information. They are commons. And your comforting lies do those commons harm
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-06-23 04:56:00 UTC
-
NIETZCHE’S MORALITY ISN”T. (promoted to post so I don’t lose it) Nietzche had li
NIETZCHE’S MORALITY ISN”T.
(promoted to post so I don’t lose it)
Nietzche had little understanding of law(dispute resolution), and less understanding if not no understanding of its opposite: economics (cooperation). When he says ‘morality’ he means ‘convention’. and in that sense, convention may or may not survive moral scrutiny. That does not mean that there are no moral statements. It’s easy to define them.
The question is instead whether moral action serves the desired purpose. Just as whether violence serves the desired purpose. Just as whether deception serves the desired purpose.
Convention places no limits on man other than the cost he bears for abridging it.
Not all our purposes need be moral, as long as the cost or benefit of immoral action is worth it to us.
That is different from saying that we cannot determine moral actions.
We can.
But whether we DESIRE COOPERATION or not is a test of morality. Whether something suites our PURPOSES or not is a question of utility and the cost of it.
This is where almost all philosophers are confused. They treat moral as the equivalent of good, rather than moral as what is necessary to achieve good through cooperation. But if the proposed good that might come from cooperation is undesirable, or a net negative, then moral action is not useful.
What do these words mean?
Moral = preserves or encourages cooperation by the non-imposition of costs.
Immoral = inhibits or discourages cooperation by the imposition of costs.
The fact that the MORAL is approximately equal to the good for ingroup members, with whom we wish to cooperate, has no bearing when we DO NOT WISH to cooperate with members ingroup or outgroup. Non cooperation is merely a question of cost. Is cooperation more or less valuable in the achievement of our ends?
If we do not wish to cooperate, then the moral or immoral is little more than an assistance to us in judging the long-term consequences of our actions because of the possible retaliation of others in times when we are not as strong as we are now.
I hope this helps because this appears to be a subject of confusion in the Nietzchean community.
Morality is a fairly simple, reasonably scientific fact at this point.
Whether a moral action is GOOD or not is a very different question.
It may or may not be Good. Just a violence may be moral or immoral, the moral may be useful or not useful. It may be beneficial or it may be harmful.
In my work I state that the moral is necessary for long-term competitive survival because of the productivity of labor in the production of everything from food to warfare. In this sense, the moral is good because it makes a group more powerful than others in every dimension – assuming they wish to allocate production to competitive ends.
I state that all disputes are resolvable by objectively moral judgments. And it’s true. But this only matters if we want to resolve disputes peacefully, so that we can continue to cooperate and gain the projected benefits of cooperation.
That says nothing about whether we want to cooperate – either as individuals or as groups or as nations, with other individuals or groups or nations. We may. Or we may not.
I argue only that those who cooperate more, will eventually be more powerful than those who cooperate less. And power enables us to bring about what we desire.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-06-22 14:19:00 UTC