Amoral (no cooperativo)
Objetivamente moral (necesario para la formación de una política cooperativa)
Normativamente moral (adaptaciones para estructuras de reproducción, producción y bienes)
Asumiendo que una norma moral pueda ser moral, si no amoral o inmoral.
Moral contractual ( adaptaciones para estructuras de reproducción / producción / bienes) Asumiendo que un contrato moral puede ser moral, si no es amoral o inmoral.
Legalmente moral (codificaciones de estructuras de reproducción / producción / bienes)
Asumiendo que una ley puede ser moral, si no es amoral o inmoral
La legislación es o moral, amoral o inmoral.
Las regulaciones son o morales, amorales o inmorales.
La discreción es moral, amoral o inmoral
Amoral (no cooperativo)
Left the video on, and ended up listening to Brits debate policy all night, and it is very clear that there is a difference between the moral structure of British argument and the LEGAL structure of american argument. In my dreams I kept arguing with people about the use of nonsense words.
There is also a very great difference between the British fascination with procedure and moral righteousness defending it, and american fascination with law, and punishment for transgressions. Again, this illustrates the great difference between British abstract moral, American articulate legal, and German duty/empirical Cultures.
A procedural person always seeks a process even though people do not follow those processes they follow rational incentives. An american seeks to understand incentives so that we produce the right rewards and punishments. Germans TRAIN YOU UNEQUIVOCALLY to know your duty and practice it, and to be intolerant of those who don’t.
I won’t get into what jewish philosophy says, but it is translatable to “Whatever you can get someone else to agree to – damn the consequences or externalities.”
Objectively Moral (necessary for formation of a cooperative polity)
Normatively Moral (adaptations for structures of reproduction / production / Commons) Assuming a moral norm may be moral, if not amoral, or immoral.
Contractually Moral (adaptations for structures of reproduction / production / commons) Assuming a moral contract may be moral, if not amoral, or immoral.
Lawfully Moral (codifications of structures of reproduction / production / commons) Assuming a law may be moral, if not amoral, or immoral )
Legislation is either moral, amoral, or immoral
Regulation is either moral, amoral, or immoral
Discretion is either moral, amoral, or immoral.
Just because your ancestors valued a particular comforting lie or falsehood is not a reason to perpetuate the lie or falsehood. We are comfortable now with suppressing lies with physical science where were were not so in the past.
We are currently uncomfortable with suppressing lies in social science: ethics, politics, economics, religion, and war, but we will not be so uncomfortable in the future.
I am almost certain that the gains from ending lies in social science will be as great as those from ending lies in physical science.
But I suspect an even greater effort to preserve lies in social science than the effort to preserve lies in physical science.
Why? Because the church had only the pulpit, which we eventually defeated with the press. But the Academy has the media, and we are not yet sure that the internet is as capable of defeating the lies of the academy as the book was in defeating the lies of the church.
Both have had the same incentives: to perpetuate their income by the sale of forgiveness or indulgences, just as the academy sells the promise of prosperity and diplomas.
The monetary incentives of the church and academy are the same.
The customer base of the church and the academy are the same.
The church sold mysticism for millennia.
The academy has been selling pseudoscience for over a century.
The way we end the academy’s lies is to defund it like we did the church. The way we defund it is through the same revolution that it took to defund the church.
But if we merely shift the academy to something new, just as we shifted the church to the academy, we have only moved to a new problem rather than solving the problem.
The answer is to reform the church and the academy so that they sell truths, not lies. Truths in physical science, truth in social science, truth in what is best called ‘spiritual science’: mindfulness.
There are many ways to produce mindfulness: from stoic philosophy, to sport, to yoga, to meditation, to the piety and sacredness of commons and ritual, to the creation of arts. The human mind requires mindfulness without the constant peer feedback of the consanguinous tribe. The greater the division of knowledge and labor, the more important is mindfulness for the happiness of the human mind.
So it is possible to construct a church, academy, and commons that produces truth in physical, truth in the social, and truth in the mind.
We need no lies. There is no excuse for lies. Lies exist to profit only from the loss of others.
We can sell truth rather than sell fraud.
We can remake the west.
Because it is these truths that were the original path of western civilization before the great lies were leashed upon us by the great liars of history.
Science: truth in the physical.
Nature: truth in the commons
Law: truth in the market.
Stoicism: truth in the mind.
We are the people who invented truth.
Truth is our religion.
We can return to the truth.
End the lies
Remake man in the image of gods: truth.
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute,
NO MORE BOOKS OF LIES
The Vedas were invented to control
The Avesta invented to divide
The Talmud invented to deceive.
The Bible invented to enslave.
The Koran invented to conquer.
Das Capital to steal.
The General Theory to Impoverish.
The Truth to set us free.
NO MORE LIES.
I think, that if I could say something useful to young libertarian and conservative men and women, it would be that fulfillment and money are increasingly difficult to find in combination. Worse, you cannot any longer look for insurance from a stable family. Worse, it is now nearly impossible to save for your old age once you’re married – and are destined to be elderly, lonely, and poor. Worse, the world has been engineered since at least the 1960’s to destroy your traditions, your families, your people, and your futures with just as deliberate a plan as the extermination of the Jews. Except that this deliberate plan has been conducted by pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-scientific fraud, the intentional erasure of rule of law, and the gradual financialization and impoverishment of your peoples through a process of continuous financial extraction. So your feeling of ‘this isn’t right’ is an insight not just an intuition. It’s not right. You’re being exterminated.
So what can you do? You can let it happen, right? Or we can change the world forever, and obtain retribution and restitution from those who have committed these socio economic war crimes. To change the world I would recommend to find a job that makes money. To see social fulfillment in like minds. To develop knowledge of the world. To maintain adequate health and fitness. And to work in as many small ways as possible toward the revolution that we need to create. There is no one else to do it but you.
It’s your time. It’s your era. You are the generation that will save your families, your people, your culture, your civilization from genocide. But that revolution will not require money and passion. It will require knowledge and fitness.
Our history of revolutions is dependent upon the democratic narrative of popular will, popular press, and taking to the streets. This is not the revolution we will provide. Why? Because we do not need millions, we do not need money. We do not really need weapons. Money, millions and weapons are strategies that the enemy knows how to wield. We need to establish our demands, raise the cost of the status quo until they are met. To make the state ungovernable. And to take selective actions until the demands are met or the state and economy collapse.
Why is this important? Because if we are a credible enough threat, then none of the unpleasant need happen. But if we are not a credible threat, then we will need to make the unpleasant happen in order to become a credible threat. fortunately or not, the timing is arriving a little faster than most of us anticipated. But we will create a network, and start educating in the positives and the negatives. The solutions and the threats. There are those of us who will instill passions, those of us who will spread solutions, and those of us who will suggest plans, and those of us who will take actions.
I am fairly sure that I understand how this will play out. But it will play out. And we will succeed. Punish the wicked. Try the guilty. Change the laws. And never again will we be subject to fraud as a means of genocide against our people. But as last resort, if all else fails, we can just kill them all by spitting them upon pikes at every entrance and exit to this the west.
CONTRARY TO THE WORDS OF USEFUL IDIOTS IN THE WEST
1) The revolution was financed by local oligarchs not americans, because the president got greedy and threatened the other oligarchical clans. The American state department supports all people’s economic prosperity and economic development because this leads to peace, wealth, and governments hat focus on internal consumption not external expansion.
2) The talent left Ukraine and still does and the oligarchical families are really not very different from the Corleone’s except they’re steppe people and that’s worse. All that remains are the offspring of farmers, the people who are at the bottom, and the gangsters that run the country.
3) American involvement in the revolution here in Ukraine was largely an attempt to prevent bloodshed, as that would ‘look bad’. The reason the revolution is unsuccessful is america’s FAULT because if the right had actually killed a few dozen politicians they would have sufficient fear that they’d reform the bureaucracy. America HINDERED the revolution.
4) Reforming the bureaucracy is difficult because all of its members are now late middle age people who grew up under the soviet government. These people are a cancer that needs to be removed. To remove these people requires an act of ‘lustration’ (cleansing).
5) The government that matters:
i) The finance and treasury bureaucrats.
ii) Judges, Clerks, Bailiffs, Sheriffs.
iii) Police, Fire, Emergency, Healthcare
iiii) Water, sewer, power, gas, roads.
iiiii) Teachers and Professors
iiiiii) The military.
6) The only body of people that can be called upon to defeat corruption are the young, and they will indeed force the change. It might require that we hire three two young people for every position currently held, but at least we could be fairly comfortable that they would have Ukraine’s interests at heart.
7) The problem with the young is that they cannot take over the jobs of finance, treasury, judges, nor the senior roles in infrastructure. They just lack the skills. Bureaucracy takes little if any skill. But calculation does. These people must be brought in from Poland, the USA and Canada.
8) The problem for with making the change is that you must pay these people enough money and Ukraine is too poor.
9) Ukraine is too poor because it lacks credit for risk taking, and land is controlled by oligarchs and the army. 80%of land is owned by the government and sold for agricultural purposes. Housing is too expensive because it’s corrupt. Without land there is no way to create leverage for borrowing.
10) Ukraine needs lustration, particularly of the judiciary, and for it to be replaced by foreign Judges each of whom has multiple young assistants on every case using the apprentice method. Ukraine needs Right Sector volunteers who have risked their lives for their country to fulfill the jobs of sheriffs, working in teams of fives, and to enforce the orders of the courts whenever they apply to members of the state. Ukraine needs a single (blockchain) totally transparent property registry. Ukraine needs young people to create an investigation department that uses the ‘secret shopper’ method to try to bribe. Ukraine needs three foreign banks staffed by foreign people, to administer all government payments.
Ukraine is either a nation of Ukrainians struggling for a better life, or a prison in which the people are slaves. It is one or the other. Right now it is the latter.
(by Eli Harman)
No man is born free. Rights must be won, and rights must be defended. (All rights are property rights.)
No man can do that alone. So you accept limits on your freedom in order to confederate, to cooperate, and win what you may.
As a practical matter, we can say that liberty will be successfully won and defended only by those who desire to exercise it within limits deemed reasonable by their fellows.
“No limits” is not a reasonable, nor realistic standard.
What we (right propertarians) are trying to do with the TECHNOLOGY of property rights and rule of law (as distinct from “legistation”) is to minimize the imposition of costs, and the involuntary transfer of benefits, to enforce productivity, and suppress parasitism, and to create the conditions necessary for voluntary cooperation.
What you (degenerate libertine) are trying to do in asserting absolute and unlimited “rights” is to LICENSE and JUSTIFY your own antisocial parasitism.
If you run a flop house, say, or a crack house, in a decent neighborhood, you are imposing costs on your neighbors, destroying their property value and threatening their safety and calm.
You may insist that it’s your “right,” but your neighbors will not agree. Conflict will be the inevitable result.
That is parasitic behavior, profiting privately from imposing social costs. It is in our interests to agree to refrain from such behvior and to suppress those who do not so agree.
Aristotle and Plato : Natural Law
(vision but failure)
Augustine and The Church.
(incremental improvement – but failure)
Hobbes, Locke, Smith and Hume
(incremental improvement but bordering on science)
Menger (Austrian/Galacian Science – German Rational tradition) 1840
Mises (Jewish/Galacian pseudoscience – jewish legal tradition) 1881
Hayek (German/Anglo Empirical – Adopted Anglo legal tradition) 1899
(failure again, with only hayek discovering that it is law not economics that produces social science)
Rothbard (Jewish/Russian Justification -Jewish legal tradition)1926
Hoppe (German Rational – Continental legal tradition), 1949
Doolittle (Anglo Empirical – Anglo Saxon legal tradition). 1959
Rothbard, Doolittle, and Hoppe. We solved social science in three generations.
The only social science possible is the common law: the discovery of means of violating the requirement for productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer, limited to positive externalities of the same. Economics is the study of information and incentives to cooperate.
The basis of natural law is disproportionate value of cooperation.
The language of natural law is economic, not moral.
It was the failure of prior generations to rely upon financial and economic language rather than religious and moral language that prevented the solution to the problem of the social sciences. Morality is economic. It must be. Since we are part of the physical universe.
This is where Hayek ended up. He was right. But even he could not escape his language. And even he did not know how to solve the problem of truth.
THE MIDDLE CLASS NEGOTIATES. ARISTOCRACY PROSECUTES. WOMEN, PRIESTS, AND STATE APOLOGIZE.
I prosecute falsehoods. I’m agnostic in prosecuting falsehoods. I prosecute libertarian and conservative falsehoods as hard or harder than I prosecute progressive falsehoods. Why? Because libertarian and conservative literature, philosophy, and rhetoric has been a demonstrated failure in competition against socialist, feminist, and postmodern matriarchal literature, philosophy, and arguments. Why? Because women vote more consistently against THE GREAT GENDER COMPROMISES, of the west, and because women are the dominant consumers, and because women are the most pliable customers of the profiteers in the academy media, and state.
No matriarchal civilizations survive. Why? It’s suicidal. We give women and those who profit from their impulses uncommon liberty, yet not adequate restraints. We prosecute profiting from the sale of all other forms of harm. Why don’t we prosecute those who profit from this kind of harm: genocide.