Dec 9, 2019, 10:36 AM
Men evolved for the physical, political and inter-temporal and women the emotional interpersonal and temporal, in a division of labor and specialization where differences are solved only by a coincidence of wants and opportunity and incentive for cooperation.
Dec 9, 2019, 10:36 AM
Men evolved for the physical, political and inter-temporal and women the emotional interpersonal and temporal, in a division of labor and specialization where differences are solved only by a coincidence of wants and opportunity and incentive for cooperation.
Jan 4, 2020, 10:38 AM
—“Women crave privilege and license. Men desire liberty and justice. Prove me wrong.”—Joshua Fox
Turn that statement into economic language: women desire consumption and men desire opportunity for production – the consequence of which is trading sex and reproduction for resources: a division of labor organized by voluntary exchanges.
—“To the root!”–Joshua Fox
Human behavior is all physics. It has to be. Economics is just physics with debts and credits. Our consciousness is just a vehicle for negotiating terms of cooperation. Cooperation is just a means of obtaining higher returns on investments of time and calories. Marriage – especially universal marriage – is the optimum compromise and the optimum means of calculating reproduction. The feminists are under the impression that men will behave by current means if the compromise of marriage and therefore exchange disappears. But if universal marriage and exchange of productivity for sex and offspring without imposing costs on others no longer exists, men will either invent new ways or revert to old ways that do not require cooperation. Women choose individually. Men choose collectively. Marriage and family is the compromise.
Jan 4, 2020, 10:38 AM
—“Women crave privilege and license. Men desire liberty and justice. Prove me wrong.”—Joshua Fox
Turn that statement into economic language: women desire consumption and men desire opportunity for production – the consequence of which is trading sex and reproduction for resources: a division of labor organized by voluntary exchanges.
—“To the root!”–Joshua Fox
Human behavior is all physics. It has to be. Economics is just physics with debts and credits. Our consciousness is just a vehicle for negotiating terms of cooperation. Cooperation is just a means of obtaining higher returns on investments of time and calories. Marriage – especially universal marriage – is the optimum compromise and the optimum means of calculating reproduction. The feminists are under the impression that men will behave by current means if the compromise of marriage and therefore exchange disappears. But if universal marriage and exchange of productivity for sex and offspring without imposing costs on others no longer exists, men will either invent new ways or revert to old ways that do not require cooperation. Women choose individually. Men choose collectively. Marriage and family is the compromise.
The Value Neutral Expression of The Female and Male Brains https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/30/the-value-neutral-expression-of-the-female-and-male-brains-2/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 16:19:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266766262383845376
Jan 18, 2020, 8:05 AM We can just as easily categorize the female brain and the male brain instead as breadth(experience, children)-first vs depth(time, environment)-first. When the paradigm you use is the high cost of brains, and high returns on brains, neural economy; division of reproductive, productive, and cognitive labor; economics of (returns on) cooperation; voluntary cooperation as calculation of group optimums; and reciprocity within the limits of proportionality as limits; and retaliation and altruistic punishment as the preservation of returns on cooperation then you no longer are the victim of intuition and animal instinct, and no longer criticize how people feel, think, or want – only whether they negotiate and cooperate truthfully and reciprocally – and that wanting others to feel, think and want on your terms is merely searching for an unearned discount.
Jan 18, 2020, 8:05 AM We can just as easily categorize the female brain and the male brain instead as breadth(experience, children)-first vs depth(time, environment)-first. When the paradigm you use is the high cost of brains, and high returns on brains, neural economy; division of reproductive, productive, and cognitive labor; economics of (returns on) cooperation; voluntary cooperation as calculation of group optimums; and reciprocity within the limits of proportionality as limits; and retaliation and altruistic punishment as the preservation of returns on cooperation then you no longer are the victim of intuition and animal instinct, and no longer criticize how people feel, think, or want – only whether they negotiate and cooperate truthfully and reciprocally – and that wanting others to feel, think and want on your terms is merely searching for an unearned discount.
Jan 18, 2020, 10:19 AM …(James Brittingham Says:) Under the nuclear family, individuals are asked to forgo the comfort, protection of large familiar networks, and women face the crucible of spending all day at home alone with infants, in order to pay our surplus production into a national, civilizational or global commons. Sorry but this is oppression. Mestizoes, Hassids, bourgeois Muslims, and the Amish all live much better than “legacy Americans”, and our interlopers can hardly be blamed for noticing this. …(Curt Doolittle Says:) Nuclear families in northern Europe just meant that you needed to afford a home before having children. So houses were nearby and communities swapped children to help each other all the time. So the entire community was an extended family. But your criticism is correct. Extended families, particularly three-generation families are optimum. To do that we must move capital to people not people to capital. …(Bill Joslin Says:) The break in the continuity of absolute nuclear families to their extended families results from urban planners and bankers in the 1920’s which closed the door on multifamily mortgages. The “anglo failure” of absolute nuclear families isn’t intrinsic to the ANF familial strategy but rather due to an extension of the strategy that inadvertently created it in the first place: i.e. usurping intergenerational transfer of wealth for those below the upper-middle class. The Anglo reaction to the influx in Irish and Italian migrants, both of which were accustomed to multigenerational homes, urban planners, and banks removed the possibility of a multigenerational home. Urban planners via design and zoning permits (i.e. zoning rental buildings as “single-family dwellings” and banks refusing mortgages issued that had more than a single nuclear family on the application. This prevented these migrants from pooling resources and labor to make a stake and establish themselves quickly to American life. It insured the municipalities and landlords capitalized on the new population growth. every generation would pay their rent and live separately as a result. Similarly, the church outlawing cousin marriages, a few centuries before, pertained to land and estate grabs by the church. An inheritance that would be handed to the next generation now went to the church. In both cases, the multigenerational home was dismantled in an effort to break them apart as single economic units in order to extract more wealth from them.
Jan 18, 2020, 10:19 AM …(James Brittingham Says:) Under the nuclear family, individuals are asked to forgo the comfort, protection of large familiar networks, and women face the crucible of spending all day at home alone with infants, in order to pay our surplus production into a national, civilizational or global commons. Sorry but this is oppression. Mestizoes, Hassids, bourgeois Muslims, and the Amish all live much better than “legacy Americans”, and our interlopers can hardly be blamed for noticing this. …(Curt Doolittle Says:) Nuclear families in northern Europe just meant that you needed to afford a home before having children. So houses were nearby and communities swapped children to help each other all the time. So the entire community was an extended family. But your criticism is correct. Extended families, particularly three-generation families are optimum. To do that we must move capital to people not people to capital. …(Bill Joslin Says:) The break in the continuity of absolute nuclear families to their extended families results from urban planners and bankers in the 1920’s which closed the door on multifamily mortgages. The “anglo failure” of absolute nuclear families isn’t intrinsic to the ANF familial strategy but rather due to an extension of the strategy that inadvertently created it in the first place: i.e. usurping intergenerational transfer of wealth for those below the upper-middle class. The Anglo reaction to the influx in Irish and Italian migrants, both of which were accustomed to multigenerational homes, urban planners, and banks removed the possibility of a multigenerational home. Urban planners via design and zoning permits (i.e. zoning rental buildings as “single-family dwellings” and banks refusing mortgages issued that had more than a single nuclear family on the application. This prevented these migrants from pooling resources and labor to make a stake and establish themselves quickly to American life. It insured the municipalities and landlords capitalized on the new population growth. every generation would pay their rent and live separately as a result. Similarly, the church outlawing cousin marriages, a few centuries before, pertained to land and estate grabs by the church. An inheritance that would be handed to the next generation now went to the church. In both cases, the multigenerational home was dismantled in an effort to break them apart as single economic units in order to extract more wealth from them.
Origins of Homosexuality https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/30/origins-of-homosexuality/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 16:08:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266763371258544130