Yes, except for the ones who for whatever reason get cut after being intact and having sex. They overwhelmingly report negative experience after. Hard to claim they just don’t know what they’re talking about.
Moreover, many men have undergone restoration (just the skin, can’t restore the 20,000 lost nerve endings) and I haven’t looked into it thoroughly but they report a more positive experience with foreskin.
These men, and women who have been with both, are the only ones with any authority worth listening to on the matter.
After all is said and done, what really matters is the science, and the science says that nearly all men who get cut later in life regret it. Moreover, women who have been with both report 1) they achieve vaginal intercourse orgasm twice as often (60% vs. 30%) with uncut, 2) get wetter, 3) experience less discomfort, 4) have more multiple orgasms, 5) have multiple orgasms in more encounters, and 6) have intercourse that lasts 50% longer.
Whether evolution or “God’s” creation, seems there’s damn good reason to be intact.
And so now we kick it off with exclusive Patron content. As I mentioned in the intro, my general approach is that all video recipes are exclusive to Patrons forever. When I have only photos (and I have a backlog of hundreds of recipes with photos only), those will be early access for Patrons for two weeks, then become public.
Exclusive content for Patrons will be more than 50% of all content published.
When you see “Famous Clam Chowder” touted by an establishment, do you often find that it’s clam flavored potato soup, wallpaper paste, or both?
This has been too often my experience and so I’m showing you how to make it “just right,” Goldilocks.
This is a rather low-fat version of New England Clam Chowder.
4 bottles of clam juice (I use Bar Harbor)
4 cans of chopped clams (I use Bumble Bee)
4 slices of bacon (1 per can)
1 cup of diced yellow onion
1 cup of diced celery
1 cup of cubed potatoes
4 cups of 1% milk
2 rounded tablespoons of dried parsley
1/2 teaspoon of dried bay leaves
2-3 heaping teaspoons of potato starch depending upon desired thickness (alternatively, corn starch)
Salt and pepper to taste
First a little “theory.” There are three principle things:
Click the link for the rest, the preparation and video.
I’m a long time blogger at FreeTheAnimal.com, since 2003 and over 4,600 posts ago. A great number of those posts have centered around whole food where I post recipes, food photos, and sometimes videos.
These posts are often very popular amongst my blog readership and so I have decided to formalize it. Initially, I have quite a backlog of recipes, photos, and videos to put up over time and in addition, I will be doing 1-2 videos on average per week going forward.
While I do a good amount of grilling, traditional stovetop, and oven, I also make substantial use of both the InstantPot pressure cooker, as well as an AirFryer.
What sort of food do I cook and is there any dietary stuff I adhere to? I cook primarily whole foods. I don’t mind using canned, packaged, or processed items when they make more sense, but typically, some form of meat, fish, fowl, or vegetable is going to be “the star of the dish.” In terms of dietary “ideals,” I don’t care much (about macronutrients: protein, fat, carbohydrate) except for two things. When the star of the dish is protein, then I emphasize or target protein and I deemphasize fat and eschew lots of added fat. Otherwise, I’m fine preparing a vegan dish, a carnivore dish, and everything in-between.
Initially, my plan is to make all my cooking videos exclusive to Patrons forever. For the dishes where I have only photographs, my plan is to give Patrons about 2 weeks of Early Access, then the post automatically goes public. More than 50% of all published content will be videos.
Chapter 1 was posted on my 57th birthday, January 29.
That was three weeks into the separation from my wife Beatrice, whom I’d been together with since about 1996, married since 2001, so 22 years and 17 years, respectively. I’d suspected for a while that her retirement last June from the day job would make or break us. It did the later. It’s very different, living with someone 24/7/365 than it is just every evening, weekend, and vacation. It’s nobody’s fault. When you have all the time in your life, you go to your primary and principle values. It turns out that ours diverge too much to be in each other’s faces, all the time.
After just over five months of solitude on my part, living alone in a pretty big space, I headed down to SoCal a week ago, and spent the most part of that week at Bea’s new place she’s crafted for herself, and decorated throughout with the many classic, artful things I collected during my five years all over Asia in the late 80’s, that she loves, and that I love even more that she appreciates them so much. I’m so happy for her to have them now. They don’t work so well in a pinewood cabin anyway.
The purpose of the visit was both to reconnect a bit, and to meet with a divorce mediator. This is someone who, rather than seeking to fuel flames of discontent in exchange for attorney fees on both sides, tells you both you’re full of shit while you’re sitting there. We met with Belinda—former divorce attorney—last Tuesday and to give you an idea, I came out of the 2-hr initial mediation feeling like crap, that she had totally taken Bea’s side against me. I was sanguine about it, though. I told Bea as we were driving away that Belinda’s $5,000 flat fee just saved us $10,000 in attorney fees, each.
But, Bea wasn’t happy either and as women seem to do, she got anxious and perturbed later that evening. Apparently, she thought the session went opposite from my impression. I’m just going to suppose that’s good.
I’m not going to say where she got it from, but Beatrice has an excellent flair for the decorous, now. On the other hand, I grew up with an artist grandfather and at least one of his brothers had an interior decorating studio…
Live above the fray. Decorate well.
What I really learned over the last week with that view is that Beatrice is so happy and content with what she has done for herself, but that just as equally, it’s not me. We’d be at each other’s throats within a couple of weeks. It’s not at all about how cool she picked a place to live or how she decorated it, but the context of life. I’m ready to move and move often, with only what I need. She’s five minutes away from the family she loves. How could I begrudge that? How can I not applaud? She worked for 35 years for a bargain where she gets enough money monthly to do what the fuck she wants every single day she wakes up for the rest of her life, no worries. Not a bad bargain and It’s indescribable, not the least of which is because for half of those 35 years, I saw her getting up at 5am day in, day out, enthusiastic to go at it another day with the school kids she owned. She was no shit-ass, union-entitled teacher, either. She loved it and lived it. She owned it.
I make it a point to apprehend ways the female is essential, respectable, and worthy of exaltation. Exaltation, for my personal perspective, took growing up with a great grandmother who raised a boy and girl (my grandmother) as a single mom during the Great Depression. I can’t imagine a Western male not having their own reasons why women are so great and so essential—even on Father’s Day.
I have never been much enamored of the “men’s” movement. Call it Red Pill, call it whatever. To me, there were always two nagging things:
Males seeking to win at victim Olympics.
Males seeking females to be their voices.
A few months back I came across a woman who, in 5 words, reconciled my problems with the male movement and after thinking about it, gave me a clear path forward in all of it.
Men need to wake up.
It actually seems very obvious, once you think about it and I did think about it lots and lots. If you do, then you immediately dismiss these nefarious notions of males as victims or of female spokeswomen for poor males.
…Back when I published Part 1 of What In The Hell Is Up, I got tons of feedback, much of which is public on the comments to that post and the Facebook share comments. What nobody knows is that I got several dozen feedback emails and comments to the blog that were held in moderation because the commenters had no previously approved comments.
These where highly berating, mocking, gloating, etc. I have a simple rule about putting through first time commenters on the blog, and from where, going forward, they are whitelisted and comments publish automatically: It has to be value-add the first time.
It’s so simple. And yet, trolls, gloaters, and mockers can’t manage that. They can’t help themselves.
There’s an interesting fact about all of it: 100% male; or, at least, anon using a male pseudo. 100%, zero exception. No females. I got nothing…NOTHING but hugs, from females. Does this not go to my interlocutor’s pith, above? Think about it.
…Feminism is an easy target but it’s the wrong target. The right target is solidly, 100%, pussy boy males with pink panties in a bunch.
Feminism simply fills the void left by all the hundreds of millions of males who have decided they want to be girls now; but of course, aren’t man enough to chop off their cocks and “man” up.
We live in interesting times. Females vying for masculinity, males vying for femininity. Of course, it will correct and when it does, it will be bloody and indiscriminate. I just hope that when it does get indiscriminate and bloody, that the pussy boys are the very first to go. Thats a level of indiscriminate I can not only live with, but embrace. Females have essential utility and no, I’m not talking about rape. Females have a keen sense about where their bread is buttered, that’s all.
It’s in our nature to seek paths of least resistance. It’s not a particularly bad thing. Conserve energy, obtain more for less, and reduce the often greater risks associated with high energy and effort.
It’s not necessarily lazy and can sometimes be smart.
In the realm of diets, however, this human tendency often goes off the rails into magical territory. It’s nothing new, really. The diet industry is huge and to compete within it—whether it be through books, training courses, packaged and processed foods, or whatever—you’re going to need some hook or sizzle that I call magic, in order to compete for the dollars on offer.
The magic typically entails some sort of easy counting…like packaged foods all broken down into point values; or, counting only carbohydrate grams. The latter is the classic Atkins, of course; and admittedly, there is a bit of “magic” underfoot, since it turns out that if you severely restrict carbohydrate, most people tend to replace it with forms of protein. Since protein is the most satiating of the three macronutrients, there is a spontaneous caloric reduction for many, and they enjoy a double whammy effect: they lose a lot of water weight from glycogen depletion initially, and then sustained weight loss from eating fewer calories than energy demands.
Here’s how I explained the stall phenomenon, long quote.
So let’s run some example numbers for shits, giggles…and in hopes of a Second Coming (I didn’t specify what kind).
…Let’s suppose a 250 pound male body, 5′ 10″, 50yo, light to moderate get-off-his-ass level. Daily burn is about 3,500 calories.
He goes Low carb. His target is 160 pounds, 90 pounds away…because that’s the last time he remembers where a hot chick approached him and, well….she did nasty things to him. He’s been told he doesn’t need to count calories or anything—that they don’t matter, eat to satiety—under a certain set of proscriptions having to do with carbohydrate per se.
And it’s exactly what he does. After the initial water weight loss and adjustment period, he settles in. Since he doesn’t count calories, let me do so, hypothetically. …Wow, amazing, and this does go to the asset side of the Balance Sheet. He’s not doing anything like 3,500 calories per day. Not even close. Eating ad libitum, he’s naturally consuming about 2,800 calories for a 700 calorie deficit per day, or about a pound lost per 5 days. He feels awesome, great…because even though in big caloric deficit, he’s still on a very high fat diet and he’s not really hungry too often. He’s euphoric. The pounds are melting off. He’s an LC believer for life. It borders on Enlightenment. It’s tantamount to a religious experience or, a Second Coming.
This goes on for just short of a year, about 350 days if my math is correct. He’s livin’ it up, low-carb style. He’s doing himself, friends, and family a huge favor. Don’t discount that. But in the end, he’s accountable mostly to himself, and in that end, he stalls. He stalls, not at his 160 pound goal where hot chicks might once again do nasty things to him, but at 180 pounds, 20 pounds away. He’s gonna have to do something, or settle for 2nd string in the chick department. How can this be? Low carb is magic.He’s proved it. Over the space of an entire year!
…Or so he thinks.
What he only proved, however, is that calories count. Yea, he may have gorged on the fatty meat one night to the tune of pounds and huge calories and couldn’t wait to tell you. But like my dear late grandmother—while I was growing up in Reno—only ever told us about her jackpots at the slots, and never the amount she fed it regularly…what he didn’t tell you is that the next day, he didn’t eat much at all. He was satiated. It all subtracts down, over time.
As it tuns out, 2,800 average daily calories is about the requirement for a 50 year old guy, 180 pounds, 5′ 10″, who gets off his ass now and then. …Unfortunately, fantasizing about the hot chicks in waiting doesn’t burn a whole lot.
Are you beginning to see where I’m going? Low carb was indeed effective. But it was only a means to the end that really worked. Actually, two means: his food palatability/reward was diminished, he spontaneously lowered caloric intake to an ad libitum level of a 180 pound man (2,800 calories), and he lost the weight. A year later, right on schedule, he weighs 180. After months and months or years and years, he begins to become disillusioned about low carb. But the blindspot, because “calories don’t count on low carb,” is that he never tried 2,600 calories daily on average, the requirement for a 160lb man with his parameters. But, had he done that, he’d have been hungry and low carb is a lot about not having to feel hungry. It’s baked into the low carb—and hopefully gluten free—cake. So low carb failed him?
Now let’s get into new information. The advent of both activity trackers like Fitbit and food logging aps like LoseIt! and MyFitnessPal (that can also integrate your tacker activity, your workouts, and even your WiFi scale) are making it not only easy, but a bit of fun to track stuff. They can even scan food bar codes, so errors are being reduced. AI may bring the ability to snap a picture of food and get a reasonable estimate of the total breakdown.
The Keto Diet as it’s being popularly touted is doomed to failure on two primary counts.
Because it’s a high fat, limited protein, and very low carbohydrate diet, it has a serious handicap in that the highest macronutrient is more than twice as energy dense as the other two, combined with the fact that’s its the least satiating, gram for gram. So you get that? If you separately eat 100 grams of protein, whole food carbohydrate, and then fat, generally speaking you’re going to feel the most full and lasting with the protein, then the carbohydrate, then the fat. Thing is, the protein and carbs cost you 400 calories, but the fat costs you 900. So, you’re more hungry with the latter, and you have already eaten more than double the energy as with the former. Can you say stupid?
It has to, and does, discourage all of the new technology that allows individuals to science their own deal and get measurable results that correlate very well with their tracking efforts. Why? Because they’ll easily be able to figure out why they’re stalled or regaining, Occam’s Razor like.
And that kills the magic and we’ve come full circle.
What if we could access and analyze all of this self reported data and see who’s doing best? Turns out you can. Turns out engineer Marty Kendall is doing just that. He has a blog, and two Facebook lives, here and here.
What he did is take about a half million days of diet data from users of MyFitnessPal, categorized them by the macronutrient breakdown they were reporting, and then see how they do in terms of success in meeting their targets for consistently coming in at goal and meeting weight loss goals.
Amazing. Per the data covering a half million days, the Keto dieters are just doing the absolute abysmally the worst. It is a disaster.
Clearly, targeting protein is the path of least resistance, almost magical. Even high carb or low protein show decent results. As soon as you start limiting protein, and there are a number of ways—a junk food diet is just like a low protein diet is just like a high fat diet—shit begins to hit the fan.
What this chart actually means is that IF you get about >10% of your whole daily calories from protein composition early in the day, you’re going to tend to eat less over the whole day, naturally. So, it’s not so much the old adage that breakfast is the most important meal but, that you make it rich in protein.
Marty is using exactly the same data, just a different way of query. The bottom line is, the more protein you eat at breakfast, up to about 11% of total calories on the day, the proverbial path of least resistance, you’ll be coming in at a good caloric deficit for the day if you’re aiming to lose weight.
The shake is made from 1 cup of the 1% milk, and I just drink the other cup. Please, not one single comment about raw eggs in a shake or smoothie. I’ve been eating raw eggs for over 50 years and have never had a single problem ever. Shut. The. Fuck. Up. I seem to always get comments from tender flowers and special snowflakes every time I mention this. I don’t care about your outlier problems and won’t entertain them.
My daily average caloric target at a loss of 1.5 pounds per week is 1,750. Eleven percent of that is 192.5 calories, which is about 48g protein. So, very damn close.
Go and do likewise. Like this, grilled flank steak last night.
Elixa Probiotic is a British biotech manufacturer in Oxford, UK. U.S. Demand is now so high they’ve established distribution centers in Illinois, Nevada, and New Jersey.
Still, sell-outs happen regularly, so order nowto avoid a waiting list.
Chosen because I had a bear visitor on my deck this morning, an adolescent, maybe 150#. I opened the door and said “hi!”
Spring has sprung after a cold, dark, and snowy winter and I decided to tighten things up a bit in terms of overall lifestyle. The principle meta rules are these, which I began about a week ago in earnest:
Preparing and eating at home
Logging food and counting calories
Moving and exercising
Work my regular income stream gigs harder and longer plus launch an additional project or two
Limit time on Social Media, plus make the time I’m there be at least half serious stuff that builds my income streams
Do simple, forward-driving To-Do lists and work them most days
At first I had a huge long list of “Meta Rules” of what I would do daily, but it got in the way of itself after a couple of days. It was a good exercise and I’m flexibly, not rigidly, mindful of lots of the stuff, like keeping the house tidy and cleaning the kitchen after food preparation, etc. The above list really distills things down to the most important essentials and it’s working for me.
So for diet, it’s very simple and flexible. In general:
Log and track everything.
Maintain an average daily caloric deficit ≥ 1.5# loss per week.
I just love everything about it. Since I got the first unit on January 20, other than a few fried eggs or omelets here and there, boiling potatoes, or heating up some frozen vegetables, every single meal has been doing in an Air Fryer. Oh, yea, I did corned beef and cabbage in the Instant Pot.
Perhaps the best thing about it, other than food is really great, is that preparation and cleanup are so effortless. There’s just not ever much mess. Below the exercise section I’ll have some pics and brief recipe procedures for stuff I’ve made lately.
This won’t take long. the basics, same theme of keeping it simple.
Battle Rope. Just the basics. A few rounds, limited rest between.
Kettle Bell swings. I’ve got a 15, 25, and 45#. But check out what Keith Norris did, a Ghettobell. You can make whatever weight you want for cheap. I’ll be fabricating one soon.
Jumprope. Standard stuff, nothing fancy.
Body weight stuff. Pushups, dips, lunges, squats, and I’ll be fabricating a pull up bar soon, as well.
I’ve contemplated going back to the gym, but if I do so, it’ll be after having re-built a good foundation with this.
Three sessions per week.
Injuries suck and I’ve had my share, even one requiring surgery (lumbar herniation), so prudence is key here. Stay in the game.
OTHER LIFESTYLE CHANGES
Just a few things to mention.
Always have some home maintenance or improvement project in the works to hit in the afternoons during the weekday, or a good dive in on weekends. In the immediate, I have a lot of burning of fallen twigs, branches, and needles to do in order to maintain the required 30′ defensible space around the house up here at 4,200 feet elevation in the forrest. Another one is to build a retaining wall along the driveway for erosion control.
I’ve been taking face selfies every few days to document the change in appearance from cutting out booze, eating very well, and fat loss from caloric deficit. Already I see a pretty profound difference.
This will shock some of you, but those who’ve been around 10 years know that I kinda got famous for the no-soap, no-shampoo deal. Well, still no soap on the bod, water is always enough, but with the long hair, it’s just pretty unmanageable, so I’ve been experimenting with Mother Dirt Sulfate Free Shampoo as well as Baebody Moroccan Argan Oil Shampoo for a wash every few days and like it. So I’ll stick with it.
AIR FRYER FOOD PICS AND RECIPES
Ok, here’s the fun and eye candy. Here’s some previous posts:
Get 10-12 thawed wings (for the 3.4 quart air fryer), patted dry, tossed in about equal proportions of salt, pepper, paprika, and cayenne (the cayenne is super important—and it only renders a mild spicyness). Of course, you can play with whatever seasonings you like (like onion and/or garlic powder), and you can toss also toss them in a spicy or savory sauce after cooking— and you ought not need much of any sugar or fat. I’ve tossed them in just a few shakes of a standard bottled hot sauce. Take your pick.
Go ahead and pre-heat your air fryer for a few minutes. Then, simply add your seasoned wings at 400F for 11 minutes. Turn them over, then air fry another 11 minutes. Here’s what I do, instead of a sauce, typically: I toss them in dry, grated parmesan as soon as they come out.
Fries or Potato Wedges
You cook them up basically the same.
To make good air fryer fries it’s simple, but preparation ahead of time is best for simplicity and rapidity. First, par boil a bunch of russets. I do five pounds at a time. You can do peeled or with skins. I typically do them peeled.
Cover the whole potatoes in cold water in a boiling pot.
Place on the stove, on high.
Once they come to a boil, remove them from the heat immediately.
Let them sit for exactly 5 minutes in the hot water.
Drain the hot water immediately and cover with cold water to stop further cooking.
Once cool, place them whole in the refrigerator overnight (this forms resistant starch).
The next day, cut them into fries. I think something between thin and steak fries is the best size.
Toss them in a big preparation bowl with plenty of salt (I like a little pepper too) and a small amount of oil, like I use no more than a TBS or two for the whole 5 pounds and much of it coats the bowl. I prefer using Sisson’s Primal Kitchen Avocado Oil over EVOO which surprised me. The taste and texture is better.
Now, pack them flat in a couple of large Ziplock freezer bags (so they don’t freeze all clumped together).
Now, within a few hours, you have low-fat, high resistant-starch fries on demand. Always preheat the air fryer, but you can do the fries right out of the freezer or let your portion thaw for an hour or so. Do them at 400F. If out of the freezer, I do them for 18 minutes. If thawed, 15 minutes. In either case, toss them halfway through cooking.
There’s another way too, that you can use with fully cooked whole boiled or baked potatoes from the fridge. Slice them up, season and lightly coat with oil and cook at 400 for only 8-10 minutes, since they are fully cooked.
Snapper or Any Flaky White Fish
4 oz Snapper
1/4 cup plain bread crumbs
1-2 tsp oil (avocado or EVOO)
1 egg, beaten
Pre heat air fryer and while it’s doing that, prep the bread crumbs with a drizzle of oil and make a sort of paste or mash. Dredge the fish in the beaten egg wash and then into the mash. Its sticks nicely. Work it around for a thin, even coating.
Place it in the air fryer basket and cook for 11 min @360. The breading stuck perfectly and it was nice and crunchy.
Along with is 11 1/2 ounces of gold potatoes (with 2 teaspoons of butter, not a Jimmy Moore 8 ounces). The whole dinner is only 468 kcal.
New York Steak
Well this is the most brainless. There is no easier way to cook a steak. Season it, preferably 40 minutes before cooking. Always preheat the unit. Then 10 minutes at 400. It comes out great, but you can kick it up a notch by getting a hot skillet with 1 pat of butter smoking hot, sear only 30 seconds on each side, then let rest 3-5 minutes. Perfect.
And yep, that’s a baked potato with 2 teaspoons of butter, not 8 ounces in the name of “satiety.”
Yes, potatoes have balls. People who eat lots of potatoes have balls.
This consists of 12.5 oz of russet potatoes made into mash with only 1 TBS of butter and 1/3 1% milk (136 calories, total), seasoned with plenty of salt and pepper. I made them last night, so in the fridge all night to form retrograded Resistant Starch which significantly lowers BG/insulin response (reheating them does even more).
Preheat the air fryer. Make your leftover mash into slightly smaller than golf-ball size, place them in the basket, and cook at 400 for 11 minutes. They were just fantastic. next time, I’ll form them into tater tots.
Boneless and Skinless Chicken Thighs
There’s a bunch of ways you could do these. Some ideas:
Just plain with seasoning
From a marinade of your choosing
Some form of Teriyaki or other Asian sauce
Some form of sweet or spicy BBQ sauce
In my case, I did a basic “kitchen sink” marinade. Some EVOO, Dijon, soy sauce, Worcestershire, some poultry seasoning, and red wine vinegar. I let it sit in a Ziplock on the counter for 2 hours (overnight in the fridge is better, but i had just come up with the idea). Pre heat the unit and then they go in at 400 for 8 minutes. When it stops, this is the time you coat with any sauce you’re going to do. In my case, I added a couple of TBS of sugar to the marinade, then dropped them back in the bag for a re-coating. Then, they go back in the unit for another 4 minutes. And you’re done.
Very fantastic. Very juicy. And, just so many variations you can do.
—Why the gut is responsible for allergies, acne, depression, and more…
Why is gut health important? What is autoimmune disease? What causes inflammation? How do you boost your immune system..?
…Imagine a top student from a highly intelligent alien race was taking an exam on interplanetary biology.
A question comes up asking the alien to take a quick look at the anatomy of this strange looking species from the planet ‘Earth’ who call themselves ‘humans’. The alien was then told that these ‘humans’ experience many different health problems… but the question did not reveal any specific problems.
The question only revealed the complete anatomy of an ordinary ‘human’.
The question then states: ‘Without having access to any human medical literature or learning about human pharmaceuticals or knowing the specific details of their various health problems, state the part of their body which is most likely to cause the majority of their health problems.’
Being a top student, the alien consults the anatomical data of the ordinary ‘human’ and answers: “The part they call their ‘gut’”, and then moves onto the next question.
Why is this? Why, without knowing the specific mechanisms behind each health condition, does it make COMPLETE sense that the gut would be the likely source? And how can it be possible for the gut to determine the health of the body OUTSIDE of the gut? And why is the gut any more likely to be the source than OTHER parts of the body?
How about some product reviews?
“I had persistent oral thrush and acid reflux from the antibiotics that wouldn’t go away ,3 days on your product it was gone I will start the 2nd course after my Sygmoidoscy.”
“Thank you for bringing this wonderful product to market.
“I am 67 Yo and have suffered with autoimmune disease manifesting in Depression, Lupus and Parkinson’s Disease (at least) for many years.
“I have studied and worked very hard at regaining good health.
“A few years ago I changed to a Paleo diet and started taking (relatively) high dose probiotics. Some benefits ensued however I was not able to clear the (lupus) rash from my face.
“(I have a rash that comes and goes according to how well my digestive system is working on any given day. I get a health report every morning when I look in the mirror to shave…and then know what to expect for the day.) And I could never really say I had good health back.
“I purchased four rounds of Elixa (two for myself and two for my partner) and completed taking those ten days ago. These past few days I have been amazed at how the skin on my face and hands appears a lot more healthy and the rash on my face is abating – in fact the rash is almost completely gone…each morning the health report now looks very encouraging.”
Why females select the males they select and open their gates is an interesting study or contemplation.
This is not a formal Propertarian post. The distinction being that, in formal posts, I’m dutifully taking up my responsibility to select Propertarian curriculum in relevant and contextual chunks and translate it to wider audiences. But, because Propertarianism is science applied to philosophy, there are many tangential areas where it’s not solely about our property and how we all fight to defend and keep it.
I’m riffing off of a video, you can see it here. It’s about 30 minutes. The first half is what I’m going “meh” on, here, but the second half is pretty brilliant.
…It’s noted that our nearest primate ancestors, chimps, have female sexual selection where the alpha male accounts for nearly half of the offspring in the tribe, the other half being spread amongst his executive officer and various lieutenants—and almost half of other males bear no offspring at all.
I constantly see this notion peddled about as though it has any important application to humans and that we can learn or know anything from it. We already know that being a very accomplished male who stands above other males can command the best pussy. That’s a priori. The problem arises when that observation is stretched to somehow claim or suggest that the lowest ranking human males in terms of looks (let’s say: short, fat, bald, and ugly) can just never get laid outside prostitution, never have a family, or produce any offspring. It’s empirically false.
It’s falsified. Essentially, the old adage holds true: there is someone for everyone. Why else would we have hoards of average low IQ and poor “refugees” flooding the West from all directions?
Moreover, if it were the case that short, fat, bald, ugly and poor dudes can’t reproduce, then why have they not been weeded out of the gene pool? If the top human specimens select so eugenically and wisely, then why does anything but pristine persist? Look at birds. Ever seen an ugly bird? they’re all fucking beautiful because that’s probably where hyper eugenics works the best and is the easiest and most obvious to observe. They can fly. Eugenics rules.
Humans are in a completely different highly evolved game. It’s beyond the scope of this post to get into the genetic details, but chimps pretty much look like chimps. They all pretty much look the same, only slight differences. Humans have off-the-scale vast differences by comparison. What is it that makes the female chimps of a tribe mostly select a single male when physical differences are so slight?
So we end up with this notion of human alpha male that’s supposed to somehow reflect the chimp in the jungle and I just think it’s laughably nonsensical and utterly falsified empirically. For one, we also know already that the Adonis element is only part of the picture for human females. There’s also the Wallet element. It’s derisively thought of as gold diggers but it’s far more nuanced and normal. It’s just general hypergamy, where females naturally want to and feel as though they are marrying up.
There are many other elements. I’ll do a stream of consciousness.
Unlikely couple, she’s way more sexually marketable than he. High School sweethearts.
Same. Neighborhood loves since they can remember.
Same. Families always went to the same restaurant or church.
Uniforms. Have you never seen how many lower-status males in terms of looks and wallet size command high market value females because they wear the uniform of a cop, fireman, or military fighter, signifying discipline and a commitment to serve and protect? “I love a man in uniform” is a saying said often.
I really could go on and on unpacking how human females have a bunch of selection criteria for who is going to bear her children, raise, love and protect them. I’m going to quote Curt Doolittle here, a bit of style editing.
“…all women are different…”
A distinction without a difference. It is almost as impossible to have a scientific conversation with women about philosophy, economics, politics, and war as it is for a man to have a conversation about relationships, carrying a baby, nursing and how ‘beautiful and special’ her lower 80% munchkin is.
Seriously. Even the fact that one would say such a thing is evidence—because that statement is an instance of NAXALT (Not all X are like that). It means you’re empirically blind: that there is no normal distribution and in particular that the vast majority are indifferent.
I expect a woman to love me, care for me, and try to make me better and happier than I am. And women are in general, if you are worth having as a mate, pretty good at it—and often even if you aren’t worth having as a mate.
The best relationship for a man to have with a woman is where you listen to her, fulfill her wants and needs, try to help her be all she can be, listen to her insights into people she has spoken to, cherish each other and the time together, but never take her opinions beyond those wants, needs, relationships, and your relationship more seriously than you do the impulsive fascinations of your golden retriever has with disgusting smells.
Just as all but a minority of men are empathically blind, all but a minority of women are morally blind. They have to be. Or they would never bear and raise children—80% of which are of necessity in the bottom 80%. Female puberty produces marginal insanity for good reason. You’d have to be insane to care for babies, toddlers, and dependent children. Female marginal insanity is an evolutionary adaptation necessary for our survival.
The fact that this was common knowledge in all cultures until the Victorians tried to corral the newly liberated lower classes, advertisers found women spent 70% of world income, and feminists tried to take power from white men, is merely a blip in the stream of history.
I love women but I know I am blind to the things women are not, just as I know women are blind deaf and dumb to anything they cannot feel.
And I hate that I even have to write about such things, because it’s the lies that these things are not both true and obvious that cause the difficulties in our relationships.
(A simple experiment: Watch the View for a week and observe how women can make excuses to justify anything that will bring about consensus no matter how false, impossible, or outright stupid. It doesn’t matter the topic. Just watch the absurd excuses they will make to generate consensus on a status quo. )
…One of the best and loveliest experiences with a woman you adore is to develop the ability to make her laugh (since, by her irrational behavior, she makes you laugh all the time). It’s possibly the most transcendent of all, in terms of the selection “mismatches” I’ve been talking about. You’ve all heard it, when curious about why she is with him, and she says, “he makes me laugh.”
It’s my favorite. I suspect it’s the most powerful in terms of a human male’s ability to snag way above what his body composition would otherwise deal him and in circumstances, can even trump Adonis and Wallet. What female doesn’t want a live-in comedian who has actually learned what she finds funny?
I know guys who can make chicks laugh. Even strangers, and like a group of them and naturally, they start competing for his attention.
I’m not so good at it unless I know them and have an intimate relationship. Now and then….precise amount of alcohol, perfect mix of chicks, I’ve have had my moments. Making women laugh is just a joy.
But you have to learn how to make your woman laugh. Making your love laugh is an opportunity to reset their “silly brains.” They have silly brains because they have to, as Curt said, above. You have to be a bit insane to take on what they take on as mothers—raisers and guardians of boys, girls, men, and women.
I learned early on how to make my wife laugh. There are lots of ways, but I’ll tell you my two go-to ways.
The first, ironically, is to pretend I’m very funny. I’ll come up with some stupid joke I know she won’t think is funny, but I act serious about how funny it is and how funny I am in telling it, and that’s what’s funny to her. Get’s her every time. “Oh, you think you’re funny?”
The second is easier and more fun. She’s Hispanic and loves salsa music and I have a large library including Cuban (thanks for the steer, Michael Savage). So, I do this white guy, Steve Martin and Ellen-esque (Seinfeld) dance schtick and have crafted over years how to make it look as though I’m totally serious and grooving to the music.
It cracks her the fuck up. She’s so used to it I’ll do it on dance floors at parties and such.
No matter how you hooked up or what the relative sexual market value was, the best strategy for a long lasting relationship is to quickly find out what makes your mate and love laugh, and make them laugh often. It may just be the most profound sexual choice criteria that tumps chimps and all else.
This is a brutal, long, and difficult post, but in its full capacity, its purpose is to help anyone understand why they prefer to love their fellow humans than hate them. Everyone does both, of course, but even at our most hateful, we generally want to love more than hate. Simple sparks of humanity—even from perfect strangers—can touch off smiles, pats on the back, and well wishes—demonstrating a genetic compatibility and commonness we have no means of fully explaining. As rational animals, we aren’t indifferent about much of anything. We care about everything and it’s our highest virtue. To care.
We’re lovers, haters, fighters, and killers. But unless we had preferred love above the others in most times and circumstances, we wouldn’t even exist.
We’re going to present the case in scientific detail as to why we somehow manage to love one-another more than we indulge our other options, and, how we can do better at it by understanding how we cooperate by specializing in “moral timeframes” towards voluntary exchanges that produce society and common good in spite of our conflicts. This isn’t an easy walk through the park but I hope you’ll give it a hearty attempt.
In this post I’ll be “unpacking” a novel idea that I recently gleaned from Curt Doolittle in a video interview. Its title: Propertarianism – Moral Specialization in the Reproductive Division of Labor, summarized as, “Moral Specialization in the Inter-temporal Reproductive Division of Labor, and Voluntary Exchange as our information system.” Accordingly, contrasting my title above, you perhaps see what I mean by “unpacking.” Far from being in any way condescending or a dig on the readers’ smarts, it’s just my job and primary responsibility in this project to use my 25 years of experience arguing political and moral philosophy from a libertarian perspective in order to make the more necessarily formal academic approach Curt communicates, into something more accessible by smart folks who nonetheless don’t have the requisite background.
I’ve embed the 24-minute video interview with Eli Harman at the end of this post.
The division of labour is the separation of tasks in any system so that participants may specialize. Individuals, organisations, and nations are endowed with or acquire specialized capabilities and either form combinations or trade to take advantage of the capabilities of others in addition to their own. Specialized capabilities may include equipment or natural resources in addition to skills and training and complex combinations of such assets are often important, as when multiple items of specialized equipment and skilled operators are used to produce a single product. The division of labour is the motive for trade and the source of economic interdependence.
It has existed in primitive form all the way back to hominid. Indeed, male and female is a natural division-of-labor in itself—and note that we refer to the act of child birth as “going into labor,” but, working men were commonly known as laborers, and we even have labor unions.
Increased specialization gives rise to new markets where a medium of exchange—money—can be used. For example, you don’t have to figure out how many of your chicken eggs it takes to get your tire changed. You price your chicken eggs in dollars, the repairman does likewise, and trade is facilitated exponentially across billions of goods and services.
But there is also a a Division of Labor for ideas, ideologies, even religious faith. In America, we have founding documents put together by a collection of various specialists that underlie the vast and quick progress made as America took on the Industrial Revolution (part technical advancement, part specialization) full force. Once sufficient personal and common wealth had been achieved, people were willing to ease up. That’s not altogether a bad idea—there was leisure time for the average family for the first time in modern history where they’re struggling through the paradigm shift of industrialization—so long as the Division of Labor in ideas, values, and morality across scales, scopes, and time preferences is checked, balanced, negotiated, and voluntarily traded or exchanged between the divisions of labor in play.
Now I’ll get into the content of the video. What follows, largely, is from the video transcript—but edited by me extensively. That is, these are mostly Curt’s words with my [sometimes heavy] editing, but he’s the impetus for all of them and I’m clarifying speech into essay, trying not to make any implicit or explicit misrepresentations. Also, thanks to Ms. Megan Kusui, who spent many hours proofreading the final draft, providing a number of valuable suggestions resulting in critical improvements, made the post title way better, and even contributed a take on Curt’s work in her own words.
CURT (edited): Progressives and Libertarians have moral specializations while Conservatives do not. Libertarians have slightly narrow moral specializations and Progressives have very narrow moral specializations. As such, Conservatives can understand Libertarians. Libertarians can mostly understand Conservatives, and Conservatives kinda understand Progressives, as strange as that may sound.
Libertarians mostly get conservatives. They’re a little silly and believe they know it all—often by divine inspiration—but Progressives are importantly crazy. They’re really out there.
Progressives are almost exclusively concerned with harm-care and what their version of liberty is, in social liberty. In other words, the unconstrained vision. A Libertarian view is economic liberty, which is the the use of liberty toward the uses of resources. Conservatives don’t see what the Libertarians see; we just simply place a higher value on economic liberty. Then, both Progressives and Conservatives are trying to preserve their respective tribes, which is why they have a sort of affinity, like one religious sect can have some affinity for another. So you see that Conservatives are very concerned about disgust, right? What’s disgusting, what’s polluting family and community values; what’s a sacred thing, things that would violate not only the body, the body politic, and the mind politic. What we get is that we tend to think that these are learned behaviors and someone is the corrupting influence; but that’s because what’s happened is over a very long period we’ve created these mythologies to justify majority rule democracy.
RICHARD: To further unpack it a bit, I’ve created a Venn Diagram to illustrate the Division of Moral Labor towards creating a society based on ideas and moral signaling.
So, I guess you could say that we have a Yin, Yang, and Zian that makes up the commons, that PROPERTY we all benefit from and in various strategic and signaling ways, contribute to—but also in some measure, parasitize as well. Even in that, there is a Division of Labor balance of power to check the parasitism of any one ideological group. At least we hope.
Perhaps the most curious thing about it is the affinities shared by Conservatives and Progressives. But it’s easy to understand when you understand that Progressives are conservative too, just rather opposite from Conservatives. Think of it like this. Conservatives are substantially traditional religious values folk, which can range from conservative Catholics to Fundamentalist, “Born Again” Baptists. So, to the Progressive, one who does not espouse, or degrades, their values is Hitler. To the Conservative, one who is eroding their values is Satan.
Strange bedfellows, but bedfellows on levels nonetheless.
REPRODUCTIVE / SURVIVAL STRATEGY
An overview of strategies, male and female. A world of meaning in a quick study (image via Curt Doolittle).
CURT (edited): We have moral specializations by reproductive strategies and the Progressives tend to reflect the female reproductive strategy, which is to have as many offspring as possible by common folk, but to then put the burden of raising those offspring on one’s tribe, one’s village…It Takes a Village. You also have the typical sort of male provider-protector reproductive strategy…and you have the producer reproductive strategy—which is guys like us who are Libertarians.
But we can’t all understand each other to some degree…nurse aunts, warrior ants, and farmer ants. So we specialize. It’s what Division of Labor is for. We can work in compatible ways. We’re similar enough to be compatible, but we’re different enough to be able to specialize. The problem with majority rule is that it’s really good for selecting priorities amongst people with similar interests and similar abilities, which is what we have when we have a family. And we have a whole lot of families.
For example, you have shareholders in a corporation with similar interests. You have a family of sorts as a bunch of shareholders in “the family.” In that corporate family you’re trying to produce profits—perhaps even some intergenerational transfer of genes and equity. You’re trying to reproduce. We don’t like to compare this because somehow business should be different from the sacredness of the family. But it’s still just an organization trying to produce a common good. It’s just like male and female reproductive strategies are compatible, but they aren’t near anywhere near identical. When you try to explain that to two different parts of the moral spectrum, it’s strange and alien. A Conservative will say, ‘well, of course;‘ a progressive will say ‘that’s not true.‘ It’s because of moral blindness. We all need to believe these things in order to do them. So we do.
So one way this plays out is Conservatives tend to see certain threats like moral peril, erosion of traditional values, etc., that Progressives just don’t see; or, they don’t see it now, to which the Conservative response is ‘well, okay, but it could be in the future.’ So we have moral specializations.
The problem with democracy stems from when we were families and we had one family, one vote. You were voting on behalf of the family and all that conflict that happens—i.e., the fact that we’re compatible but not identical—is happening down inside the families, not on the general polity. You’re just bringing that consolidated, familial vote up to the political arena and by consequence are working on The Commons under far less conflict, where common interests hold sway more so than do individual or democratic differences.
When women began to vote, their own reproductive strategy was—individually, democratically—let loose on the polity at large and on the storehouse of wealth that is The Commons. And, of course, this broke up the family because no longer was the female’s reproductive strategy contained within a family with one consolidated vote, it became a matter of public interest where The Commons took the place of the familial common. Let’s say the motivation became OPC: Other People’s Commons.
So both reproductive strategies or interests are let loose in public political conflict. Rather than the prevailing or dominant male strategy of producer, provider, protector—tempered at home by the female interests of harm-care, security, etc., consolidated in one family one vote—you now have both strategies and interests competing in the polity, thereby ushering in the disastrous results of political and bureaucratic parasitism, depletion, and looting of The Commons in the name of so-called progressive interests often focussed around Balkanized group identity.
We have no way of coming to a resolution because there’s no one way under democracy or any majority rule to conduct a compromise. It’s just whoever wins. There’s no compromise involved at all.
RICHARD: I’ll add that the perpetually poor, the less intelligent (under 100-110 IQ), and undereducated—those with no standing as net contributors to The Commons…but who nonetheless demand a disproportionate stake—also adopt the Progressive, female strategy of laying all their desires, life’s challenges, and life’s troubles at the public trough.
The problem here is multi-faceted, from unemployment-creating minimum wage laws, “child” labor laws that stifle and delay development…creating boredom and juvenile delinquency and in many cases, lives of chronic crime, and a poor primary and secondary education system that focuses on lots of nonsense beyond the “three Rs” instead of teaching tech and job skills. And then, they’re encouraged to waste four to ten years in an Institution of Higher Indoctrination—turning out parasitic people in increasing numbers who create no competitive net values for others and society (the commons).
MEGAN KUSUI (editor): Let’s say a group of long-standing fraternity brothers whose wives are all mutual friends decide to go on a weekend getaway together. Decisions have to be made. Instead of everyone, one vote, these decisions should be divided by markets. The families decide location (one family one vote), and then markets emerge: the men choose some key activities, the women decide on accommodations, the kids decide what’s for dessert, what brand of popcorn, and which movies to watch or games to play. The problem with government is that we dump all of these decisions into equal baskets and everyone gets to vote on everything. Then, you get mob rule.
Curt is fond of saying “don’t let children run around with scissors,” which is essentially what you do when you allow low IQ individuals to participate in one-person-one-vote democracy. Give them something relatively meaningless but important to them to do, given their time horizon.
CURT (edited): The solution to this democratic-polity conflict is to create exchanges between people with similar interests in government the same way we create exchanges in the market and doing those contractually. Government doesn’t currently work that way. But in terms of practical, operational solutions, we could have different groups of people that have different strategies and different priorities and if they have to make exchanges rather than trying to rule through majority, then we can cooperate through trade without having to agree. I hope to elucidate on that quite a bit more in the future.
We can get a nash equilibrium, which is that we all get the best that’s possible while still making each other happy.
In game theory, the Nash equilibrium, named after American mathematician John Forbes Nash Jr., is a solution concept of a non-cooperative game involving two or more players in which each player is assumed to know the equilibrium strategies of the other players, and no player has anything to gain by changing only their own strategy. If each player has chosen a strategy and no player can benefit by changing strategies while the other players keep theirs unchanged, then the current set of strategy choices and the corresponding payoffs constitutes a Nash equilibrium. The Nash equilibrium is one of the foundational concepts in game theory. The reality of the Nash equilibrium of a game can be tested using experimental economics methods.
So just like in the market, we don’t get the optimum. We get the best we can get while making each other happy. Just like in marriage, in monogamy, nobody get’s the optimum. They get the best they can get. That’s what a Nash equilibrium allows you to have; everybody gets the best they can do by pairing off with a peer—at about their status. In the market, what we do is have people with completely different economic interests and strategies but these strategies are completely invisible to us because we’re just communicating via prices—which are both signal and language—and voluntary exchanges.
The problem is that the market is not capable of producing all goods and services. Libertarians would like this to be true, but it’s not because in the market when you and I compete and you get the deal, I still lose. That provides me with incentives to act faster.
Another problem with Libertarianism is if people are trying to produce The Commons the same way, no one will volunteer for The Commons. You have to make it impossible to cheat and steal. You have to suppress it almost entirely before anybody puts the first nickel in. That’s why we need government; it’s to say, ‘well, this is a Commons and nobody can monopolize or privatize it.’ That’s why we have it—it’s raison d’etre. So we have to create a contract with one another, but the problem we have is that we can’t create a contract with one another because there is no means of obtaining an exchange in government.
Cunning public-choice nonsensicals will try to come in and argue this, but the answer is there’s no way to construct an exchange—because of majority rule and winner take all—so everyone is trying to figure out what’s the optum, i.e., what’s the most efficient means by reason and empiricism instead of more pragmatically taking advantage of all the information that exists in all those people in their time and trade preferences—the exact same way we do in the market via the signal and language of price.
We’ve constructed a government that manufacturers ignorance for its own sake. It causes conflict. We did exactly the wrong thing. Instead of learning and teaching how we resolve conflict in the market, we destroy one family one vote and preclude market information entering into the construction of norms, rules, and law.
We actually did the opposite, the terrible thing. Everybody’s got an equal vote even though they have unequal interests and unequal abilities, so there’s no way to make use of the knowledge they have except by majority rule. Thereby, we’ve destroyed the information via the signal and language of price.
How do we construct in government a voluntary exchange system for the production of society and The Commons that we’ve constructed in the market using price signal and language? How do we do the same thing in the government that we so wonderfully do in the market, such that we can actually take advantage of Progressive, Libertarian, and Conservative values via their respective price signals and language?
It would be better to constructing exchanges. Because what government ends up being via majority rule is death by majority rule.
RICHARD: You don’t care what the owner of the local convenience store believes, or whether you agree with his morals when you regularly exchange and trade to mutual benefit. With these sorts of exchanges Curt proposes, you both benefit; whereas, government is geared towards majority rule and winner take all. It’s the equivalent of going into the convenience store, flipping a coin, and either you get the goods for no money, or he gets your money without giving you the goods. But it’s even worse with government. It’s not a 50/50 coin toss, but loaded dice.
So, we exchange all the time on many levels, even in families and love relationships—it doesn’t always have to involve money as a medium of exchange. We know how to do it because we do it all the time, it’s built into us. Give & take, trade-off, negotiate, bargain, agreement, contract, warrantee. Yet, we’re not conditioned to think of the production and organization of society and the commons as being a cooperative win-win endeavor where moral specializations create divisions of time, scope, and scale through voluntary exchanges. So, we have a long way to go, but it begins with understanding.
DIVISION OF LABOR
CURT (edited): One of the things about the market is it’s not good at long term. Compounding that reality on human scales is that our reproduction cycle is decades long. In the ancient Roman view of things, it’s as long as the person who experienced something, here, still lives. So it’s roughly a hundred years. Correspondingly, the cognitive cycle in government is roughly a hundred years as well. But it’s just a hundred year curve and it’s moving forward…a forever moving target.
There’s two ways this plays out this and it’s rather esoteric at first glance but critically important. The intertemporal means to you, from here to here…rather than intratemporal, which is nearby here, but across long periods of time. Progressives are trying to get sure things (-ra-) in short timescales (-er-). It’s classic cake and eat it too.
Progressives want to make sure that all the children are fed, that they’ll be taken care of, that they’re happy. Then you have the Libertarian: I’m glad he’s happy. But, we have a production cycle. It takes time and the outcome is uncertain. It’s hard to produce this stuff so children can be fed, cared for, and happy because it all relies upon exchanges and the voluntary organization of production.
Libertarians organize capital, laws, rules, and contracts in a way that encourages everyone to do stuff voluntarily—because then they can organize all of the production themselves. It actually works, which is the secret. And Conservatives are resistant to the long term because they can’t predict whether it’s going to enhance or diminish their sacred values, which is a priori conservatism. ‘If we let this happen, then long-term the whole thing is going to fall apart.’ So you have these micro divisions of labor, just like we have division of labor in the market.
We have the same thing happening in the intergenerational production of human beings. Our society is a production unit. We produced society just like we produced pins, automobiles, and skyscrapers through division of labor. Some of us worry about little stuff, some worry about the upbringing of children, some worry about production, and some of us worry that the whole thing is just going to fall apart.
There are three means of persuasion in the short term, medium term, and long term.
Progressive means: Gossip, alienation, rallying, shaming (a short-term female reproduction / survival strategy). The females get all agitated, create a storm of outrage, and their selected males go take care of the problem for them, even if it means killing.
Libertarian means: Exchange / trade, production cycle (and reproduction), incentives (medium term persuasion).
Conservative means: Limits and force (long term persuasion, force if necessary, to keep the wall from ever being breached)
We’re all pretty good at coercing each other over our timeframes. We tend to get thinking about this in the political context of of majority rule instead of a division of labor intertemporal (getting from here to there in the time required) production cycle of society amongst human beings.
So Conservatives think in the long-term progression cycles of society, Libertarians work on the medium term production of goods and services, and Progressives work on short term—the production of comfort, happiness, and well-being as our little human beings are growing.
Conservatives save—they think about saving progress—whereas, Libertarians think about investing and producing for sustainable consumption, and Progressives think about consumption in the here and now in order to pay for votes and other political victories in an increasingly dysgenic society of majority rule. The conglomerate of Progressive ideas is to force us into unbridled consumption. Burn the whole civilization down in order to consume.
I’m breaking it down into the production cycle. We actually need these moral perspectives in our division of labor, but we can’t let any of them go to their extremes. We can’t let Conservatives go to their extreme or we’d get a form of Islam. We can’t let Libertarians to go to their extreme or we’d get libertinism (a form of hedonism). We can’t let Progressives go to their extreme or we’d get socialism and if we get socialism we’ll get increasingly dysgenicand we fall apart and consume everything in sight and there’s nothing left.
When we get overly conservative we get stagnation. If we get overly libertarian, we’ll get moral relativism. If we get overly progressive, we’ll get parasitism.
RICHARD: The big takeaway here is the introduction of moral value signaling due time scales in the division of labor. I’m talking about Curt’s use of intertemporal and intratemporal. It’s a very important construct so it ought not be glossed over due to unfamiliarity by those making a serious study of this new and revolutionary—indeed unifying—work.
Let’s consider the -er- by means of a term everyone is familiar with: interstate highway. Everyone has driven on one. You can drive from San Francisco to New York and time is not a big factor. Whether it takes you three days or five, the overriding concern is that you got yourself from one place to another in about the time it takes you. Now the -ra- in the same context. Intrastate roads and highways are thoroughfares close by you, but your perspective changes. While their purpose is still to facilitate you getting yourself from one place to another, the bigger factor is that you can count on them on a quotidian basis. They’re always there for you, as far as you can see out into the future and this allows you to factor their utility into your future plans.
Let’s illustrate further by eliminating time scales so we can see how conflict in terms of moral signaling fades away and persuasion is uncalled for. Suppose you’re having a weekend get together amongst close friends and family. You have a dinner party Saturday evening and after dinner—adults and children all fed to everyone’s satisfaction—the Conservatives jump up and start packing away all the leftovers for Sunday. The Libertarians jump up and start doing the dishes while planning for breakfast, lunch, and dinner tomorrow. The Progressives ask “what’s for dessert? Then, playing their role: “Kids…come get ice cream and cake!” No need for any conflict or persuasion there. Everyone wants leftovers, everyone wants breakfast, lunch, and dinner tomorrow, and everyone wants dessert and coffee.
Now let’s take the same scenario, only we’re in the prescient Zombie Apocalypse and all the close friends and family have made it to your place. At dinner, the Conservatives admonish everyone to ration, catalogue what’s available, and dutifully eat only what’s absolutely necessary to retain vitality for the long haul. The Libertarians note that there’s a few months of good weather until winter sets in, so we need to get a garden planted and break out the fishing gear and guns to add meat and fish to the stockpile. The Progressives note that the kids are all downstairs in the entertainment room and need reassurances that the adults are seeing to every contingency, so moms make up some Orville Redenbacher, bring it down, and decide on which movie to watch or game to play. Now you will introduce some level of conflict, virtue signaling, moral preferences due to the added variable of time, and so persuasion comes into play, in spite of everyone acting on their values and signaling their own roles in this division of labor. If the relations remain healthy, it will be because of negotiation and voluntary exchange.
NOBODY IS A SPECIAL OR UNIQUE SNOWFLAKE
CURT (edited): It’s hard to train people to behave in a certain way. We’re super predators. Conservatives have an extreme view, that progress in itself ushers in an accumulation of negative behaviors, just as a Libertarian would be troubled by the accumulation of rust on the machinery of production. The Conservative just always wants to to make sure the machine keeps working long-term but the Libertarian has a more nuanced sense of trade offs toward higher production in the nearer term.
Nobody can truly explain why they feel what they do. People can’t explain their moral intuitions. They’ll go out and justify them all day long. But the truth is the words we use when we talk to each other is just negotiating with other people on behalf of our genes and social conditioning. That’s all we’re doing. Our genes are telling us that we know. We can tell you your genetic strategy from your moral values.
It’s mostly negotiate. It’s a division of labor where we’ve got this language thing, and we justify our values and moral approach to them. We try to position all this stuff so that we can keep this organism working just the way ants send signals to each other.
…And so we spend all this time trying to coerce each other. But we’re never going to convince anybody to do anything. We can’t, because it’s actually not in our genetic interest to do that. The only thing we can do is create institutions that allow us to take advantage of our division of labor specializations. Some people create really bad institutions and some create really good institutions. Westerners have established some pretty good institutions. The fact that the West used heroism, truth telling, the jury system, and The Commons—and the fact that it adapts faster—was pretty smart for a poor small minority that had to use very specialized fighting tactics to keep much wealthier people closer to the center of the Bronze Age at bay. And we did a great job of it. Go ask the Turks, when they came up against us. We’re really, really good at it.
We have to understand what our strategy is. It isn’t like this accidental thing that we developed this great purposeful plan. We evolved it by trial and error over time and it turns out to have been a very, very good one. And the only way to measure that is empirically—not by reason, not by experience alone. You know it because we can measure it empirically. This kind of civilization evolved faster. Operationally, we can explain why it evolved faster.
It’s possible for us to recalculate and adapt faster than other civilizations are able to recalculate and adapt. As Hayek said, “You Americans, if you don’t like something, you’ll just change the whole place in six months.”
It’s evolution. That’s our thing.
LIBERTARIANISM VS. LIBERTINISM
CURT (edited): I worked really hard to distinguish between libertarianism—which is aristocratic liberty—and libertinism, which is Rothbardianism.
When I say Libertinism, what I mean is that we can create wealth independent of the consequences to norms. I’m trying to make the point that the purpose of our existence is the reproductive cycle and to not just to fall into the progressive era imperative of consumption and production. I’d create companies all day long and generate new ones if I could. With enough money and enough time, I’d just keep doing it for the sheer joy of doing it.
I’d like to just experience more of life and try more things. We’re very experimental people. We feel this way for a reason. It’s our function in society to worry about this stuff because, in part, a Conservative’s concern is that the guys in the tribe next door are going to come kill us. Whereas, us Libertarians are actually going to go over there and start talking to them; ask, “what can I give you?” Or, “how can I help you?”
We have to do our job as Libertarians. But our job is not an end in itself. The end in itself—of liberty—is to persist the group—to ensure its persistence. Whatever group is better at producing liberty can produce a wealthier group of smaller numbers than can be produced by a poorer group of larger numbers.
The Libertarians are important because we’re the people that are dragging humanity kicking and screaming out of constancy—because that’s what they all desire as fundamentally status quo lazies.
The Progressive’s desire is to reproduce as many offspring as possible and consume everything possible, whereas the Conservative wants to make everything stable so they can protect it from all disruption. Libertarians are always trying to create disruption. But, disruption has a logical end.
That logical end, in Western civilization, is the normative. That is, it’s the reproductive cycle that suits the normative commons for people who are wealthy and breed in small numbers.
RICHARD (summary and conclusion):“…the reproductive cycle that suits the normative commons for people who are wealthy and breed in small numbers.” That’s the Holy Grail and it should be. Power, prosperity, romantic love, leisure, and continuous self-education for those who have sought and made the proper exchanges in life.
I think everyone understands that as two primary genders, we all come from different genes, geography, geopolitics, social conditioning, cultures, and beliefs. And, we think what we think, there’s no convincing us otherwise, and we’re bound to project our norms upon others via various forms of value and moral signals accounting for time preference.
How do we produce a society from those elements that’s cooperative, voluntary, reciprocal, and warrantied against our individual and group errors?
…This post took far longer than I expected because I detected the unifying element that makes it all fit together, as though you’re in the home stretch of a jigsaw: it’s the temporal element…time and everyone’s estimation of its import upon their values and morals.
We love what we’ve produced over time, that thing we call society. It’s a love & hate relationship, to be sure, but I think we mostly love each other a little bit more than we hate each other. To our credit, we yearn to love others far more than we emotionally desire to hate or kill them. It’s baked into humanity. It’s a good thing, or we wouldn’t exist at all.
Everyone and their values are necessary on various levels of importance to our survival, advancement, and prosperity. We need differing values and virtue signals motivated by time preferences and imperatives, such that we’re always in voluntary exchange and negotiation to resolve any conflict, rather than in violence and domination in order to move towards an embrace of any one extreme.
Yes, I’m convinced, now.I hope you HODLed, as did I. Every last Satoshi or equivalent—in fact, I’ve been auto-buying weekly BTC and ETH all along and never stopped.
The lines on the chart above don’t really “mean” anything, they’re just a metaphor for general sentiment, both of which prevail out and about. Since early January and increasing in intensity over time, the downtrend sentiment has prevailed generally. Now, over the last month, the sentiment tide is shifting to the uptrend view.
Why? Who knows? In my last post, yesterday, there was this in comments:
Awesome! Glad to see you back. Excited to see the market heating up again. Community activity has been sub-tepid, and it seems people are bummed out. I think that will change in short order.
Yep. Why it’s time to fire things up, again. I didn’t enjoy the doldrums but other than say HODL and wait it out, there wasn’t much to say and you’ve known me long enough, Bret, that you know I don’t blow smoke up asses.
Either you have confidence in this new technology with confidence that there will be significant investment pouring in over the long haul, meaning HODL and wait, or you don’t, and end up selling at lower prices to the smart money.
And this is ultimately a function of two things: 1) having a crypto portfolio that’s low enough of total portfolio that you’re not freaking out all the time (especially if older…young, doesn’t matter so much…if I was under 25 I’d probably have 100% in crypto) or 2) crypto may just not be a good fit for you.
But who ultimately knows anything? Winter doldrums? After-holidays ennui? Or, for it turning back around, spring has sprung?
On the more empirical, look at the signals side, was it a big Bubble-FUD operation? Significant selloffs? Lots of people with trepidation, so less money coming in, unable to sustain those early January price levels? Or, a combination of all three to get the FUD money to sell at lower prices to the smart money in anticipation of big rallies to come?
Regardless, here’s the evidence for the big rallies to come.
When #Paleo was the “in” diet thing just a few years back, I was regularly mocked, chided, and dismissed in that community for daring to mention the positive benefits of the #lowcarb#highfat#ketogenic diet at their conferences where I was invited to speak (there were many who were angry I wrote KETO CLARITY). Now that the tide has turned and #keto is the “in” thing, Paleo is having to kowtow to the message of nutritional #ketosis more. How convenient.
Had they simply allowed the science supporting this way of eating to be openly articulated and shared rather than making a mockery of it in 2015 at PaleoFX with an agenda-driven featured presentation using century-old research called “The Danger Of Ketogenic Diets: Why Most Of Us Shouldn’t Do It” (watch this nonsensical and smug lecture here), then perhaps the goal both the Paleo and the keto communities seek of getting people #healthy through #nutrition would be even further along.
BTW, I submitted a response lecture to that conference for the following year that would have highlighted the latest research about keto—DENIED! They clearly had an anti-keto agenda and didn’t want that keto crap pushed at their events. Oh how times have changed in three years.
Sadly, the information and scheduling gatekeepers in the mainstream of the Paleo community messed up and messed up BIG TIME. They really do owe a lot of us in the keto community a huge apology for dissing this powerful, life changing modality that I would argue most of us SHOULD do. Yes, they’re now talking keto in 2018, but that’s because they have to so they remain relevant with their audience.
It didn’t have to be this way, Paleo.
Then, in the comments to the same post:
What a smug, fat-ass piece of shit. Anybody who gives this butter-gobbling, lying turd any sway at all is an abject fucktard who deserves everything they get…such as uber elevated cholesterol, nutritional deficiencies via hyper-high, empty calorie fat, and getting fatter and fatter just like poster boy has been doing for years. It’s so bad now that he has moved the goal post from fat loss to “health gains.” Well, he’s been packing on gains, that’s for sure.
Alright, time for a game of which thing is not like the other. Which is Keith Norris (the face of Paleo f(x)), Mark Sisson, Robb Wolf, and Jimmy Moore.
The level of ridiculousness here is just surreal. It’s Alice in Wonderland territory.
And you know why Paleo has waned somewhat in excitement and popularity over the last few years? Because it’s a sensible and stable way of eating, moving, and living, and once you got it, you got it down. It becomes a lifestyle and you have no more need of gurus, blogs, products, etc., unless it’s your thing to do that and in terms of fellowship, you can’t do better than Paleo f(x). The 2018 conference is wrapping up just as I polish off this post. And you can also follow Mark Sisson and/or Robb Wolf. If you’re super into Keto but want to do it right, then check out Ketogains where they actually post their results, which are both enormous and impressive.
Or, go ahead and follow the buffoon and abject liar. That way, you can be told what you want to hear and stick to your gluttonous ways. You want to be told that there’s magical foods and macronutrient ratios that let you always eat to satiety and you never have to go hungry. Satiety…you know? That thing that got you fat in the first place? So, yea, Fattass Moore is merely cashing in on the fraudulent-fad sector of the diet as that’s the sector in all popular fad diets where they tout the magic—until those for whom magic never happened before, and isn’t happening now, move onto the next magical thing.
Paleo still has a substantial amount of popularity in the tens of thousands or more. These are the folks who got the essential sanity and simplicity of it: whole food, discipline, and hard work. Magic lost its appeal to them.
There’s just no way around it. That the lies are so bold-faced, ushered forth with such impunity, with no apparent awareness that it would be easy to expose them in your sleep, makes you have to question their sanity, their intelligence, or both.
The gist: everyone remembers that pic to the left of Jimmy chowing down on five eggs and a half pound of butter (the pic to the right shows the results and “health gains”). There were many others like it, too, as well as much discussion everywhere—easy to find—that chowing down on copious amounts of butter with meals was a regular thing. The other day, Big Fat Loser-Liar Jimmy Moore and his partner in Big Fat Lies, Christine Moore, came out in league to claim it was all just Big Fat Joke with a butter prop. And it has been exposed everywhere as the biggest and fattest lie ever told, including on Richard Nikoley’s Ketotard Chronicles.
It’s no secret that Carb-Sane / Evelyn Kocur and I have had mutual animosity going back to like 2012. Whatever. I’m not given to grudge holding. Guess that’s not her thing though, as I believe I’m still blocked everywhere I can be. Oh, well, whatever.
Ok, I’ll not steal any more of her well-deserved thunder. Go check out that post. I’d add one thing and that is, it’s time to make Christine Moore just as big of a target as Jimmy, now with her bogus “Nutrition Therapy Practitioner” “certification,” a stupid, health-harming podcast, and the demonstrated willingness to bold-faced LIE for Jimmy (and presumably for her own benefit). See how Jimmy likes the wrath towards his stupid wife he’s wrought. No mercy. No quarter.
I was intending to light a fire under this place again about a week ago but held of to brush up and to make pretty sure I’m seeing what I’m seeing. More on that in a detailed post tomorrow.
I like that chart. Here’s the link to the portfolio. I’m adding seven altcoins to it. Here they are with links to at Coin Market Cap and the current prices which I’m fine with. The Markets link gives you the list of exhanges and trading pairs.
Tomorrow will be about how the next wave is likely beginning and it will be the biggest we’ve seen yet.
On the heels of yesterday’s post kicking off a new series, I’ve realized that Propertarianism is replete with males, yet it’s fully accessible to females and actually seeks to restore to them full power as females, the true power they squandered since they traded it away for the bait-and-switch of the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution—giving them faux power so they just, ineffectively, shut up. It was power evolved over millions of years that they could truly count on because it’s already in all of them. It’s baked into the female cake.
Instead, they bargained for a pat-on-the-head seat at the political table, an entry into the Guinness Book of World Records for most gossip, and the great distinction of sporting the most laughable fashion statement at political rallies in the history of humanity: the pussy hat. Pathetic.
Look back. Look way, way back. What political agenda created or advanced by the female in general has been something to lift humanity and add to the commons—the things we all benefit from in kind—like industry, technology, jobs? None. Instead, every single female-political measure over all time has been designed to take the accumulated value of the commons and say, “look, there’s loot there; I can promise it to my own constituency for FREE!” Of course, males engage in the same political parasitism but, at least they have the role of attending to the storehouse of the commons; or, at least, slow down the rate of looting and raping by females.
My first post on Propertatianism mentioned a book I read long ago. The Neo-Tech Discovery. I read it twice. Once in 1990 and a second time in 1991. Then I put it down and went off writing on my own. Yet, now and then I recall something that really grabbed me and I never forgot it.
Amongst many other things, the book contains “114 Neo-Tech Advantages,” touted to be hierarchically integrated, such that you gain more insight by reading them in order.
Here’s #106, out of chronological order, one of my favorites.
Throughout the universe, much remains unknown. Yet, nothing tangible or conceptual is unknowable to the conscious mind. But with human emotions, certain specific feelings in a person can never be known or experienced by others. For all human emotions are products of individual characters based on unique fingerprint combinations of physical and psychological natures. That means personal, unique experiences cannot be duplicated by others. Thus, any emotion in any individual person can never be exactly understood or fully known by any other person. Recognizing one’s inability to know certain emotional experiences in others is particularly useful in romantic-love relationships. Two important emotional experiences that cannot be cross-experienced or fully known between men and women are identified below:
1. The Penetrated versus The Penetrator Experiences and Feelings
A man can never fully know the feelings, sensations, and emotions of a woman being penetrated during intercourse. Likewise, a woman can never fully know the feelings, sensations, and emotions of a man penetrating a woman. That eternal mystery of feelings further deepens between a man and a woman when they try to comprehend the feelings of orgasm in the other.
That eternal, unsolvable mystery between the sexes enhances the pleasure and excitement of a love relationship as each partner struggles to get closer to the other’s feelings and experiences. But they can never close the gap. Never can the feelings of orgasm in one partner be known or felt by the other partner. And for romantic-love partners, that elusive mystery is delightfully maddening and eternally challenging. That unknown quality can forever keep the heterosexual[ 83 ] experience fresh, haunting, and mysterious. Men and women can only imagine the feelings and emotions in the other, always wondering yet never knowing how distant their imaginations are from reality.
2. Female-Nature Versus Male-Nature Experiences and Feelings
A number of exclusive male or female emotions and experiences can never be fully experienced across sexual boundaries. Two examples are illustrated below:
An Exclusive Female Experience:
An implicit, constant physical threat toward women exists from essentially every man. That threat exists because the different physical and psychological natures of man and woman leave most men with the power literally to kill any woman at any time. Even smaller, weaker men could kill most bigger, stronger women in a bare-hand fight to the death. Thus, most women are perpetually at the physical mercy of men.
Under that threat, women often must silently take the degradation of being bullied or treated as sex objects as their earned qualities are ignored. No man can fully know that particular degradation because he has no way of duplicating the conditions which create that uniquely female situation. Even if the man were unjustly treated as a sex object, he would still have no way of knowing the woman’s feelings. For unlike women, his different physiological, psychological, and social orientations do not leave him under a constant, implicit death threat.
An Exclusive Male Experience:
A strong emotion felt by highly productive men is the desire for a peaceful core to counterbalance their aggressively assertive lives. That desire usually relates to a woman with whom such a man is free to retreat from his battlefield actions to experience peaceful love, tenderness, serenity. For only during that precious time is he free to fully expose and share his soul exclusively with another human being — his woman. During those moments, that woman becomes to him the supreme value in all the universe.
Ironically, the strongest, most productive, independent men have the greatest need and capacity to receive a woman’s love, support, and tenderness. Tragically, however, many such men never recognize or admit, even to themselves, that supremely important emotional need and pleasure. Similarly, strong men often never admit to other emotional needs such as being free to cry when suffering great sadness or pain. …A man crying has been erroneously viewed as a weakness or unmanly.
Many women are unaware of the need in productive men for a peaceful, private world containing a one-woman love. But women who understand that need hold a key for delivering powerful values and happiness to their men and to themselves. Understanding and filling the need for a peaceful, reflective core in aggressively productive men is among the most powerful of all binding ingredients in romantic-love relationships.
Aggressively productive women also have a need to periodically retreat into peaceful reflection. Yet, that need does not comprise the same psychosexual emotions as within men because of the inherent psychological and physiological differences between men and women.
[ 83 ] The homosexual experience of male-male or female-female intercourse cannot really simulate the exclusive male-female experience. Homosexuals fail to simulate heterosexual experiences not only because of the obvious physiological differences, but because of the profound psychological differences involved between the homosexual act and the heterosexual act. Even when the physical actions are the same (such as oral sex), the wide psychological differences between men and women preclude similarities in emotional experiences.
Over a couple of decades of having this worm in my brain, the most profound of it for me has always been the exclusive female experience of knowing at all times she’s amongst predators, all of whom could kill her. Men don’t think like that, though it can certainly happen.
I was wondering this afternoon what could be a similar, unending—not situational, not fleeting—feeling for a male and of course: prison. Imagine being a rather diminutive or small male in prison. What will your survival instincts have you doing? Sucking cock and letting your butthole be a thrusting ground.
I really hate it when people joke about rape in prison.
The first is quite formal though accessible to the politically inclined and the second is a banter, “rabbit hole” post. I intend to do both in hopes of enticing interested parties across the spectrum of ideas and current events.
The bottom line is that I determined that Richard needs to significantly up his “game.” There are many elements to that, and the primary focus over the coming weeks is to get to the point of no return. It’s that place where you shake your head in amazement over the shit you’ve been pulling and the thought of going back makes you nauseous. That point. I’ll add that Jordan Peterson’s runaway best-seller, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, has been an invaluable aid to me. I could not recommend it highly enough.
Among the initiatives I’m undertaking is to take on more responsibility and one of those at the top of that list is to do my part in promoting Propertarianism to the widest possible audience I can, such that more than just policy wonks, geeks, moral and political philosophers, and intellectuals are engaged. And I happen to be very good at making complex information more accessible for the average man and woman with at least some passion for truth and honesty and who are willing to put in the effort to think.
Sure, anyone can go to the Propertarianism blog or Curt Doolittle’s Facebook (he’s crazy prolific there), but he’s not so easy to follow unless you have substantial prerequisite knowledge. Out of necessity, he has has to present his work in academic, textbook, formal ways. He has to create the Bible.
So, it’s my passion—as I’m learning myself—to embrace the responsibility to unpack, integrate, synthesize and make the tough stuff easy to grasp. And, to have some fun with it through pushing boundaries by posting crazy-ass ideas and banter over what the Propertarian take might be.
So with all that, there’s a new menu item under the More… heading: The Propertarian Project Table Of Contents. If you go have a look, you’ll see that I am chronologically listing each post with a brief summary as I tackle this. As I get to perhaps a few dozen posts I’ll consider creating a sort of topical index with links to the posts that treat the topic in some way.
Every post I do will have a link to that TOC such that anyone who stumbles on anything can immediately gain access to all rabbit holes.
And I think that’s about it. My next post, sometime this week, will cover the Division of Labor in the area of societal moral signaling between Progressives, Libertarians (small ‘l’), and Conservatives. Yes, we’ll learn that Progressivism does serve a “divided labor” role in society towards nurturing the commons.
For background, see Could Propertarianism Be the Grand Unifying Theory Libertarians and Objectivists Have Been Seeking? That’s my first post on the topic and I’m tearing my way down rabbit holes with a thirsty enthusiasm I’ve not experienced since about 1990 when I first realized all the regurgitate that’s called food really creates a fat and dumb social and commons parasite in various manifestations that libertarians, conservatives, and progressives are all guilty of (more on that in a subsequent post).
In a private comm channel today, Megan Kusui proposed a pithiness:
Men’s exclusion of women’s opinions about government is balanced by women’s exclusion of men’s opinions about procreation. Yang & Yin.
I didn’t get it at first. As comments developed, I did. I’m new at this but am also a very quick study, and once I’ve got it, I’m down my own rabbit holes again, to come up with new and wider honest integrations I can synthesize into a new paradigm of considered thought.
So let me unpack the pith for you. Throughout history, men have dominated government, or, public policy you could say, and have not generally been interested in what women think about it. Conversely, women are the gatekeepers over mate selection and aren’t interested in a too-short, too-bald, too-fat, too-unskilled, too-unacomplished, too-undesireable, too-“nice,” etc. dude—nor their pathetic complaints and whining about it. They want the best spreading peacock they can get.
Politics, economics, and other manly domains we might properly call “civilization” give men decision making power over reproduction.
This is important because only men are willing to pay the short term costs and risks of Eugenia in order to obtain the benefits in the long.
Women use political, economic, and other power which they can obtain only by duplicity and parasitism, predominantly to retake control of reproduction, and use it for dysgenia.
Women spend down civilization on risk aversion for themselves and their offspring.
Given my misunderstanding of the post, I initially thought this was an excellent rebuttal from one of the top identities in the burgeoning Propertarian movement to surpass and leapfrog libertarianism.
As a point of order, there are two ways genetic selection turn for humans: eugenic or dysgenic. It’s simply the same thing as evolution or devolution. You’re getting generally better, stronger, smarter, more capable, competent, peacock-desirable as a social species; or you’re getting worse—defaulting to laziness, despair, resignation, entitlement, and parasitism. You could say it’s: enhanced selection, natural selection, or pernicious selection of the weak, stupid, and lazy.
“Chaos, the eternal feminine, is also the crushing force of sexual selection…. It is Women as Nature who looks at half of all men and says, ‘No!'” – Jordan Peterson
This is the point at which I understood the too-pithy-by-half post. She follows up with:
Is it not true that just about any woman can mate whereas 1/4 of males (outside of prostitution) cannot?
This seemed to be an opportunity for yet another commenter to introduce new contexts, vastly expanding the realm of fully integrated honesty.
This seems implausible in terms of “can’t.” Won’t maybe. If a fertile man’s primary goal is procreation, anybody can find someone no matter how short, fat, ugly and bald.
But if his goal is enjoyable sex, a trip to PI or Thailand is a better option than 90% of western females, and it does not operate like street corner or call girl prostitution, either.
Ante is upped. A challenge. She goes again:
In reply to your sexpat comment this ability is only recent due to affordable travel. South East Asia travel had opened up unprecedented access to sex for the less desirables.
Ante and challenge upped again. Seen, raise. Double down.
“this ability is only recent due to affordable travel”
That’s like dismissing the fact that a man can now expand his search for a mate from a 10-mile radius of his birthplace to a few hundred miles because cars.
Economies of scale and technological advancement generally give everyone opportunities to “settle for more,” and that continually reshapes the selection criteria for everyone. Here’s another one: male hair restoration has become very good, giving men a ton more possibilities by regaining attractiveness.
“South East Asia travel had opened up unprecedented access to sex for the less desirables.”
“Well everything is unprecedented until it happens for the first time.” – Tom Hanks as Sully
The caricature of the old, bald, pot-bellied, Speedo-sporting Euro male just isn’t true. Besides, they go for the boys, anyway.
Predominant over there is, rather, highly desirable males. I’ve hung with many an expat. Largest representation is retired military (they can retire at 50% of salary in early 40s) and retired oil workers from the Middle East.
So you have fighting-men mentality combined with a lifelong commitment to being in shape, combined with first-cause military selection criteria.
Then you have the offshore rig workers with huge bank accounts because you have nothing to spend your money on 2/3 of the year, who are rough and tumble rugged men who can handle 24 hour shifts at sea busting ass around flesh grinding machinery.
And in both, you have the requirements of expat status where you have to keep your paperwork and Visas in order and stay out of tangles with the law, precluding being a drunk or drug addict.
Nothing “less desirable” about these guys at all. They’re just smart enough to know better.
So there. I agree. Yet another commenter rings in:
SE Asia not very eugenically competitive. With both gene pools in their present state, I can see the advantages. On the other hand both countries take a hit each time this happens. PI is multi-ethnic so this complicates matters. But what do their children call themselves? A new race. Alone.
The shut-down-the-convo dude replies:
In the general that’s true, but many specific contrary examples when you introduce western DNA and nurturing. Many expats father children over there and combined with low cost of living, can really afford to give excellent care.
I have an English mate I met in Thailand 30 years ago. I told him about a place in PI. He has a stellar wife and his daughter by her just graduated top of her class at an all girls private school. She’s smart and aware as can be, because she has a smart Englishman for a father with the means.
The introduction of western DNA has been a thing since top-down colonization. Mestizo/a is a classification that accounts for that, used in Latin America and the PI. So to some extent it’s not unprecedented or shocking, but a known quantity. Which is good.
From a Propertarian standpoint it seems to me that there’s many ways to spread western moral ideals to the unwashed parasitic masses globally, and bottom-up “Neo-Colonialism” via expat is one good way.
Later, he continues:
…Last night in some other comment thread M argued to me that it’s men who need to wake up (in the context of the disaster tearing apart western families and precluding them in the first place) because they let it happen in the first place. I can’t argue with that, but, why fight a losing battle?
The term “sexpat” gets used as a sort of way to engender an automatic negative reaction without having to explicate.
Can’t men wake up by just going to “The New World?” There, he can live twice as well on half the money. It’s not only the role-reversal ability where expat areas draw vast numbers of young and hot women so you can have fresh young, hot ‘P’ every day if you want, but more “bang” for your buck across the board, har har.
And with a bit more money, you can buy your yourself petty-aristocrat status. Nice little walled villa, full time staff, spiffs to local police so your place is watched with diligence, wining and dining the local who’s who so you’re an insider and everything public policy goes mostly your way, etc.
So, the dude pretty much dominated the convo.
Fully integrated honesty.
What is the value of a human being?
To whom, and for what?
See you next time. I’m planning a whole series of posts, one every week or two and have been graciously granted lots of reference material from which to select topics and run down my unique sense of rabbit holes.
This is going to be fun. I’ve been waiting for something to overcome the meaninglessness for a while and give me something to live and stand tall for.
Sue Saunders. Photo by the famed “Dirty Ernie” of 1970s EasyRiders fame.
The other day on a private comm channel and just off the top of my head, stream of consciousness, thinking out loud, I quickly wrote:
From experience I think there’s three principle things about the female that apply to most.
1. They are polyamorous. That is, while most will be monogamous, they have the capacity to maintain lightly loving or flirtatious liaisons to keep options open. Strategy.
2. They are a little bit lesbie. They too appreciate the beauty of the female and there is a lowest common denominator element to that. I’d say most females I’ve been with have had some level of sexual same-sex curiosity or experience.
3. They all want to have their cake and eat it too. They are very trade-off averse. They want it all, without having to give up anything.
My long time friend Sue, Hot AF pictured above, had some input about the above and I thought it worthwhile to share with readers. Some of you from way back might remember Sue and her three cave girls I blogged about. We have an update post on that planned soon, the cave girls six years later and man are you not going to believe it (the oldest one is 6′ 2″ tall and stunning).
So here’s Sue replying to me.
From experience I think there’s three principle things about the female that apply to most.
Yep, broad generalizations are really not something in my wheelhouse. I prefer to deal with each human on an individual basis, but I will just leave it at that.
1. They are polyamorous. That is, while most will be monogamous, they have the capacity to maintain lightly loving or flirtatious liaisons to keep options open. Strategy.
Most people I know are ‘poly’ in some form or another. Women may be more inclined to this, but how would I know… most of the time, the women I have observed are more inclined to stick to the side their bread is buttered on and may (or may not) have some orbiters waiting in the wings as a back up plan, BUT the men tend to have some back-up plan as well.
We all do it, perhaps for different reasons, but intellect is a heavy indicator here. Some, male and female, have the presence of mind to consciously keep someone on the hook as a backup plan, but many, especially males, are just exercising some base biological instinct to find the next person to serve as an outlet for physical pleasure.
Some, not many, but some, actually build some emotional/financial/physical long term component into their time-investment back-up person. Most people are just too stupids to have this type of long term goal in mind when selecting those people with whom they are developing a connection.
2. They are a little bit lesbie. They too appreciate the beauty of the female and there is a lowest common denominator element to that. I’d say most females I’ve been with have had some level of sexual same-sex curiosity or experience.
I watched this over and over again, primarily while bartending, but also in general. I am in 100% agreement that this is primarily a female trait. What I have observed and participated in, is that women are not motivated by an appreciation of beauty as a straight up visual stimuli. Except for the young ones, who just think that the whole lipstick-lesbian thing is cool (mainly as an attention-getter aimed at males who are inclined to pay more attention to the girls who are open to this type of thing), more experienced women do this for a totally different reason.
Women – including me – all have a mostly silly inclination towards some romantic connection. A lack of strong male leadership in a committed relationship, or the lack of a relationship with a male at all, will make women prone to forming bonds with others who are of like mind, validate them or feed their egos. Sometimes, that is other women.
As a result, women, and, yes, particularly women, will often seek or accept the intimate company of other women. Simple curiosity may be a powerful motivator for the less-intellectually-inclined, but with more mature or experienced women, especially women who have some agency and awareness of their own lives – it is simply a matter of forming a bond with any other person and letting physical needs trump more socially acceptable expressions of “love”.
3. They all want to have their cake and eat it too. They are very trade-off averse. They want it all, without having to give up anything.
Here is where I take exception to your assessment… You have characterized me as “trade-off averse”. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I work every day to fight this condition. All Humans Want to Have Their Cake and Eat It Too. I am no exception.
I have a job I despise, yet I recognize that I have to give up respect, autonomy and flexibility in order to have some basic stability in both the short and long term to increase the quality of life for my kids. I am cleaning shit off of walls, and being treated like a throw-away moron by people who couldn’t generate an independent thought to save their own lives, yet, I give up any chance of being respected or valued to provide opportunities for my kids. Yes, it is a trade-off.
I have given up my inclinations to be selfish and seek pleasure, because it would harm my reputation, and subsequently, the ability of my daughters to gain standing in the community. I have even gone without food when finances weren’t great, in order to provide food for my children. I have swallowed my pride and kept my mouth shut when it was seriously detrimental to my own ego all to be the one an only stable source of knowledge, values, and ethics for my kids and for my friends. These are all trade-offs.
So, I am trade-off averse, I just have the presence of mind and the self-control to know when the trade off is worth it. So, yes, I am trade-off averse, but I am also aware of how my actions affect others.
Well, I must say that I knew that Sue was an exception, at least on point 3. :)
Elixa Probiotic is a British biotech manufacturer in Oxford, UK. U.S. Demand is now so high they’ve established distribution centers in Illinois, Nevada, and New Jersey.
Still, sell-outs happen regularly, so order nowto avoid a waiting list.
Yet, I was the only one to catch yet another temporary block. Prior to drafting the previous post I had gone in and reported the image from Dean Marroni’s profile, just to see what would happen. Then, I thought better of it, wanting to preserve the original and number of shares for the record, so I deleted my report. After a couple of days I decided to reactivate it, and this is what I got back from Facebook immediately.
LOL. So, I had a friend of mine issue a report on it.
And, here’s what he got back a couple of days later.
So, what can I say? That’s just as flagrant as you can get. they’re just cheap-ass liars. And to top it off, here’s another one I got wind of. Check this out.
Mark Zuckerburg and Facebook deserve any and every bad thing that can come their way.
My entry into Liberty Thinking—to paint a broad, all-inclusive stroke—was neither via Libertarianism nor Objectivism (more properly labelled Randianism, as in Ayn Rand). It was by a dude who was a self publisher under the pen name of Frank R. Wallace, representing the names of his three children: Frank, Ruth, and Wallace. His name was Wallace Ward.
You’re welcome to Google all about it if you like.
Wallace was a PhD physical chemist for DuPont with a decent number of patents under his belt. Then he read Rand, went all Liberty, and the rest is history. Except for one critical thing. He was a professional poker player in Vegas after DuPont and sort of integrated his liberty philosophy with what he observed about human behavior around a poker table. His Poker: A Guaranteed Income for Life by Using the Advanced Concepts of Poker is a very amazing read (I have an original hardcopy sitting beside me as I write). Who would have guessed? It’s also online, free. Scanning the table of contents, you may get a sense that while it’s truly a poker manual, it serves also as a metaphor for how various levels of false authority in society extract unearned livelihoods from an unsuspecting populace. Wallace coined the term Neocheating to describe this phenomenon.
This experience is culminated in The Neo-Tech Discovery—114 tightly integrated conceptual identifications about conscious human life. Rather than go through traditional publishing, he toughed it out and marketed internationally through classified ads and direct mail, having that book translated into about a half dozen languages—even Arabic—which he ran all through a single office staff in Las Vegas.
Wallace became a good friend of mine until his death in 2006 from being hit by a car while out on his daily run.
But what does this have to do with Propertarianism? I’m glad you asked. First, way back, Wallace’s work got this dude to completely shift his entire worldview—born-again fundamentalist Baptist, former divinity school student, Navy Officer on exchange with the French; age 29—to an atheist, quasi-anarchist way of thinking. …In a split second. I still remember it vividly. I’m laying on my couch in Toulon, France—after a breakup with my live-in Françoise—and I picked up that black and white book and within an hour or two, everything I thought I knew was completely and utterly false for me, forever.
It’s close to three decades ago. I have never looked back. It’s easy when you simply discover your own errors rather than find some new thing to believe in—as though life is an endless search for the best belief and the best faith, rather than just dumping the premise entirely. That’s what I did.
I was always unsatisfied with Libertarian and Objectivist thought and nipped at their asses way back in the day on Usenet, writing over 10,000 pages worth of debate material from about 1994-1998 when I put theory to practice and built a real business that did several million per year.
This was the core thing. What clearly differentiated Ward from Libertarianism and Objectivism was principally a couple of things:
Every human is either a net value producer (pays his costs, has leftover for others and society…the commons) or a parasite (loots or is a drain on the commons)
While coercive taxation is theft, there are many ways to pay “excess taxes,” where not only do you pay your fair share, but you lift society (the commons). “Excess taxes” are generated through hard-nosed scientific, technological, entrepreneurial, and business activities—creating jobs and wealth.
And this is how I grew up in this Liberty, and why I was always unsatisfied with Libertarianism and Objectivism, though I tacitly supported them both because it was the only game in town. Moreover, I found Neo-Tech to be a much harder sell, since it’s designed to shed you of or at least make you very skeptical of literal belief in theism early on, such that you have the capacity to better grasp the much wider integrations involving rampant The Matrix-like parasitisms that infest society—and various clergy play a critical role in that by propping up false authorities that institutions of higher parasitism can call upon to sanction their activities.
I did, finally, come up with my own gig as an offshoot of Anarchy. I never qualified the term. I was never an anarcho-capitalist, an anarcho-syndicalist, an anarcho-communist, anarcho-agorist….or any of those prescriptive, normative designs on what is, simply, a negation. They’re all like atheism as a religion, where your hobby is to NOT collect stamps. Same thing. I just don’t believe, and top down imposition of anarchy—or even revolution—is as self-contradictory as is The Libertarian [political] Party.
But everyone always wants to have their cake and eat it, too.
My unique brand of anarchism is, simply: Anarchy Begins At Home. Here’s a 17-minute introduction I gave at the Ancestral Health Society in 2012, sponsored by Harvard Law School: Paleo Epistemology and Sociology.
The gist of it is four simple things:
What is the quality of your knowledge?
What is the quality of your social relationships?
To what extent is an overbearing State required to ensure 1 and 2?
Could you be better off with home-grown collaborative and reciprocal relationships and contracts, trading mutual value for mutual value?
We are not socialists. We are social animals. The distinction is that in that latter, you get to choose who are your social and value-trading partners.
Given the rather lengthy introduction, I want you to clearly understand that Propertarianism grabbed me just as easily as Neo-Tech and almost as quickly. It’s an honest integration. Fully Integrated Honesty is the term Ward used (also, Wide-Scope Accounting in that context, where not only are benefits accounted for, but costs as well). Propertarianism uses the term Truth Telling. At first, I split hairs on that—truth being static, and therefore, subject to manipulation through the telling of a matrix of truths, dishonestly integrated; whereas, honesty is dynamic—but it’s not worth splitting those hairs, for now.
…But at first, we talked past each other a bit, and I rolled my eyes without reading anything. I’d grown accustomed over almost three decades of same shit, different day—and yea, I can smell the cinnamon in the poop. But Megan had demonstrated an astute and sharp mind, so I was persuaded to at least take in this 30-page PDF she sent my way. I started out ready to rip it apart—as I can do with any of a million bullshit screeds—but I couldn’t, and then I became rather amazed that I couldn’t. Nothing more than a minor quibble here and there. Suddenly, I’m onto something that feels like it did neatly 30 years ago. True discovery and grand in terms of unification of ideas I could never quite reconcile.
So, in this respect, I owe Curt the same level of gratitude—even awe—that I have always recognized toward Wallace. Two truly unique minds and I’m privileged to have been able to access them as I have, and so quickly and clearly. And, thanks again to Keith and Megan for getting me there.
…So let’s get into Propertarianism. The very first thing to know is that it’s all about property, the root of all rights and by extension, all civilization itself. Don’t waste a day or so thinking it’s about “what’s proper,” LOL, as I did, which is as normative as is “Objectivism.” Let’s dive in and have some fun. I’ll mostly discuss the things most relevant and of interest to a typical Libertarian or Objectivist…
BACKGROUND THESES AND PRINCIPLES
Propertarianism is a scientific, rational, empirical, approach to understanding and analyzing human behavior, incentives, norms, institutions, cooperation and conflict.
At first, readers may think the differences in these three systems of thought to be somewhat mundane hair splitting—pleading an allegiance, belief, or love of liberty as our first cause anyway. That much is true. We all have that in common. But, if you wish to advance that cause, then you’re best off at least getting your first principles, or premises, as right as you can. Libertarianism and Objectivism (and many others going way back) are all reasonable—and in some cases, heroic—efforts to do just that. But, a core methodology or guiding light in Propertarianism is: The Philosophy of Western Civilization in Scientific Terms. One could even say accounting terms, economic terms, or business terms because all of these have a counting system associated with them. We can measure, which lends a bullshit detector to philosophy.
Let’s put the core distinctions as succinctly as possible.
Now let’s get into the discussion, whereby I’ll argue that while the Libertarian and Objectivist views are something one can hold and get my approval and congratulations for holding, they are nonetheless the equivalent of religious views, or literature.
Before we look at the libertarian and Randian views on rights and property, understand that Propertarianism is a wholly scientific approach to these questions. From Core Concepts, by Eli Harman:
Science, or the “scientific method” is an empirical method for gaining understanding of reality and access to truth. Many people, including many so-called “scientists” do not understand the scientific method, why it works, or why it is valuable. You can be sure you are dealing with a pseudo-scientist whenever you hear phrases like “settled science”, “scientifically proven”, or “the scientific consensus”. The errors of these pseudo-scientists are rooted in “justificationism” the philosophical belief that science is about acquiring factual support or supporting evidence to “justify” theories. In this view, truth is “justified true belief”. Not only must belief be true to qualify as knowledge, but it must also be “justified.” One must have a good reason for believing it.
In contrast, critical rationalism, an epistemology (philosophy of truth and knowledge) developed by Karl Popper and others, advances a standard of “true belief.” Knowledge, as “true belief,” does not need to be justified, because it cannot be justified. It only needs to be true. And the method of arriving at true belief is not justification, but falsification, “conjecture and refutation.” We advance towards the truth by identifying and discarding error, by process of elimination. [emphasis added]
Now, given that bolded section, how many times have I written that the true struggle in life is not in being right, but in in being a little less wrong every day or iteration?
Let’s begin with Ayn Rand’s justification for man’s rights. She held that men have a right to life, and every thing derives in corollary fashion, from there. The logic flows like this:
All organisms, to live, must secure the values required for survival.
A value is that which an organism seeks to gain and/or keep.
Humans are unique in that they must choose to do this; they do not run on instinct.
Moreover, humans can also make the choice to default to death slowly, or make it quick by willful suicide.
Accordingly, humans have a choice ingrained in them by nature itself.
Therefore, humans have an implied natural right to that choice afforded by their natures.
And that’s the derivation of natural rights according to Rand.
Well, OK, but who’s going to insure it?
Now let’s cover the Libertarian take. Some Libertarians come via the Ayn Rand Express, some via church, some others via Constitutionalism, and still others from the love of pot…. From Core Concepts:
Libertarian moral and descriptive theories are usually internally consistent, but not externally correspondent with observable reality. They are not scientific. They are not empirical. Like Marxism, they are rationalism and moralism.
To correct these errors, Propertarianism seeks to reconcile what is salvageable from the libertarian project, from classical liberalism, and from pre-enlightenment Aristocracy, by subjecting it to the scientific method, falsifying what is false, retaining and incorporating what survives into a new body of theory, knowledge, understanding and practice necessary and sufficient for the restoration of Western Civilization (and others.)
Ayn Rand and by extension, libertarianism, holds to the non-initiation of force principle (as did Neo-Tech), but it just fails. I’ll quote David D. Friedman from an old book. The Machinery of Freedom—in the Problems post-script section—which I read in 1994 and then dismissed the non-initiation-of-force principle as unsupportable.
One problem with deducing libertarian conclusions from simple libertarian principles is that simple statements of libertarian principles are not all that compelling. Lots of people are in favor of initiating coercion, or at least doing things that libertarians regard as initiating coercion. Despite occasional claims to the contrary, libertarians have not yet produced any proof that our moral position is correct.
A second problem is that simple statements of libertarian principle taken literally can be used to prove conclusions that nobody, libertarian or otherwise, is willing to accept. If the principle is softened enough to avoid such conclusions, its implications become far less clear. It is only by being careful to restrict the application of our principles to easy cases that we can make them seem at the same time simple and true.
The easiest way to demonstrate this point is with a few examples. In order to define coercion, we need a concept of property, as I pointed out at the beginning of this book—some way of saying what is mine and what is yours. The usual libertarian solution includes property rights in land. I have the absolute right to do what I want on my land, provided that I refrain from interfering with your similar right on your land.
But what counts as interfering? If I fire a thousand megawatt laser beam at your front door I am surely violating your property rights, just as much as if I used a machine gun. But what if I reduce the intensity of the beam—say to the brightness of a flashlight? If you have an absolute right to control your land, then the intensity of the laser beam should not matter. Nobody has a right to use your property without your permission, so it is up to you to decide whether you will or will not put up with any particular invasion.
So far many will find the argument convincing. The next step is to observe that whenever I turn on a light in my house, or even strike a match, the result is to violate the property rights of my neighbors. Anyone who can see the light from his own property, whether with the naked eye or a powerful telescope, demonstrates by doing so that at least some of the photons I produced have trespassed onto his property. If everyone has an absolute right to the protection of his own property then anyone within line of sight of me can enjoin me from doing anything at all which produces light. Under those circumstances, my ‘ownership’ of my property is not worth very much.
A similar problem arises with pollution. Libertarians sometimes claim that since polluting the air over anyone else’s property is a violation of his property rights, pollution can be forbidden in a libertarian society except when the pollutor has the consent of the owners of all affected land. This argument is used to attack schemes such as effluent fees (discussed in Chapter 26), which are designed to limit pollution to its economically efficient level—the point at which further reductions cost more than they are worth—but not to eliminate it.
Here again, the problem is that an absolute right to control one’s property proves too much. Carbon dioxide is a pollutant. It is also an end product of human metabolism. If I have no right to impose a single molecule of pollution on anyone else’s property, then I must get the permission of all my neighbors to breathe. Unless I promise not to exhale.
The obvious response is that only significant violations of my property rights count. But who decides what is significant? If I have an absolute property right, then I am the one who decides what violations of my property matter. If someone is allowed to violate my property with impunity as long as he does no significant damage, we are back to judging legal rules by their consequences.
OK. Both of these well meaning, Golden Rule-like systems of thought and principles both reduce to the level of just believe it. And it’s fine to believe it. I do, generally—uphold it would be more accurate—and I’ll still use these often when confronting someone from the unwashed masses because these ideas have been around for a long time and its’ far easier to persuade someone to adopt them than the far more radical ideas of Neo-Tech or Propertarianism.
So, while Golden Rules and Good Will Towards Men are generally admirable traits, they are also contextual. It’s like having an open mind is good, just not so open that your brains fall out. From Core Concepts, Non-Aggression vs. Non-Parasitism:
But there is also no reason to extend enemies the benefit of non-aggression if they will not extend the same to you. That’s non-reciprocal. That’s a cost without benefit. You have to forego the benefits of aggression against your enemies, either preempting their aggression or actually plundering, looting, enslaving, or killing them, and you don’t get anything in return for your generosity or forbearance. They certainly won’t avoid doing any of that to you if they have the opportunity. […]
If you will permit me to speak metaphorically, the cold hand of Darwin will punish us just as surely for not engaging in aggression judiciously as for engaging in aggression injudiciously. Libertarians are content to leave the benefits of judicious aggression on the table for the sake of principle. But a principle of leaving benefits on the table is not an evolutionarily competitive one and that’s why libertarianism has never gone anywhere and never will.
One of the problems with various schools of philosophy, not limited to libertarianism and Randianism, is speaking in literary or metaphorical terms—which is excellent for literature and to convey meaning in appropriate contexts—but is downright sleight-of-hand and manipulative when testing scientific hypotheses. Having read The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, by Julian Jaynes many years ago, I had always had a deep appreciation for how metaphor is a core component of consciousness that took humans from the equivalent of dis-integrated left-brain/right-brain schizophrenics, to an integration that ushers forth true literature. But I was missing something in the context of what we’re trying to get at here. I quote from the section on Operationalism from the Core Concepts, again:
Operationalism means speaking in operations or actions, like a recipe or a computer program. Science is operational because a proper, non-pseudoscientific, science paper is basically like a recipe. “Set up this experiment in this way and conduct it just so and you should observe these results.” If someone follows the recipe and observes different results, the conclusion will have to be revisited.
People frequently do NOT speak operationally. They speak in metaphors, analogies, meanings, or existence claims, instead of actions and operations. When you do not speak operationally it is easy to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, conflation, fraud, or deception.
So let’s get into Rights 2.0 from a Propertarian standpoint.
Property In Toto (all that we invest in and protect is our property)
The first question to ask is, “why don’t I just kill you and take all your stuff?” You can quote the Libertarian or Randian take on things, but what compels me to listen or take it to heart, sword in hand, at the ready…ready for loot and the pleasure of your females—who will come to me anyway, as soon as you’ve been dispatched? More historically, what compels a group of marauders to not take all your village stuff and kill, imprison, or enslave all the males, take all the amassed wealth in stored foodstuffs and livestock, and take pleasure in your wives and girls? There is much historical precedent.
Oh, on that one, I know your answer already: Civilization. OK, then, was civilization built on the back of Libertarian and Randian principles, or by means of insurance, by which I further mean, through cooperation and reciprocity?
It’s a waste of time to make moral claims about your property when you can simply buy the best insurance money can and can’t buy, which is mutually insuring one another as best you can through familial bonds, friendship bonds, informal kin-bonds, and community bonds. What that means in practice is simply not being sitting ducks. You impose costs upon would-be encroaches on all levels. And this worked in limited fashion for a long time so that civilization could gain a foothold once plant and livestock agriculture became a technological thing and then, bingo, there’s assets and wealth to steal. Don’t forget thats it’s reciprocal—not libertarian mental masturbation to justify looting of the commons or Randian selfishness (“blank out”). Even if a trading parter altruistically comes to your aid to impose a higher cost on your would-be raider, it might mostly be because you are a value to him as a value producer. Think of it like helping and protecting a vendor for your manufacturing operation.
It’s important to understand how the internal and external imposition of costs for raiding helped evolved civilization.
…Suppose you’ve organized a highly trained, organized, and discipled band of raiders. Do you think you’re going to be able to keep your innovations a secret, or are you going to eventually encounter competition? Well, communication over any significant distance sucked back in the BC, and well into the AD. You couldn’t keep tabs on your raiding competition, so you organized, invested relative lots for the next raid—only to ride two weeks to find your target village already looted, killed, conscripted into service, and raped.
So what’s the natural innovation? You’re back to insurance. What if you establish a force of protectors who remain on-site in various value-producting villages, by means of wealth-generating agriculture, in order to fend off other raiders and invaders? And, instead of burning it to the ground, you protect it from other raiders and extract taxes over the long term?
You have just established proto-governance that’s still in force on earth to this day, and it’s bigger than ever.
It has grown to become the modern nation state and there are vast swaths of history and geopolitics to learn, to try to understand it. But all you need to understand is that villages welcomed professional protectors. And libertarianism fails when it sees these arrangements as protection rackets. No, they are insurance operations. Moreover, they become more efficient (cost lowering while raising costs to would-be raiders) over time by training and organizing the population itself into a grand militia, where everybody fights.
…Humanity went through various stages as things formalized and institutionalized. First and foremost is that myth became organized and institutionalized quickly as an innovation of cost cutting in terms of insurance. Because the population was dumb and illiterate, the task was simply a matter of finding the most resonate myths and formalizing them, with lots of narrative and story telling. This, in one shot, increased the cost to rebels, and lowered the cost to allies. All enhancements and costs go to an accounting of property and insuring property.
Eventually, you had a church of narratives and myths becoming what was the modern nation state. They could insure protection of property at the lowest cost ever seen—that much, primitive peoples understood, even if they only understood it as stored blood, sweat, and tears. It was a visceral allegiance.
Virtually all leaders of state still rule by some form of divine sanction, with absolute authority, because nobody understands it’s simply a means to insure the protection, preservation, and taxation of net value-producing wealth, at root. All the things that sustain and in cases, lift civilization to higher and higher levels.
What a brilliant idea, really; create myths, stories, and narratives to pacify the populace and so, lower the costs associated with insuring their wealth creation by making rebellion costly and punished, while rewarding alliance and fealty. And taxing.
The secularization of the State we’ve observed—beginning with The American Experiment, where for the first time, the State was suborbinate to man-made principles and not the theistic interpretations of politicized clergy—was at first hugely successful. It was like opening the cages and doors to to the whole human zoo. Progress exploded and the Industrial Revolution had something very profound to bear as a standard.
…We live in a modern era now, where the old myths don’t seem to satisfy the young which, on its face is a good thing. The problem is that adults over the last 3-4 decades have been criminally negligent to a level where they ought to be sued by their “insurance company” for taking undue advantage of services.
It’s so awful, and few kids would know what a “property” is beyond their own smart phone. When I grew up on a 10 acre narrow strip along the Truckee River—that runs from Lake Tahoe to Pyramid Lake—I knew what my grandfather’s property was, because it was posted as such.
He once got his face beat in with a club and as the drunk and stoned hippies tried to gouge his eyes out while shouting “show me the deed,” his next door neighbor and brother showed up to insure. With a long barrel .44 magnum—nope, no catechisms of Libertarian or Randian doctrine. Rather, he came with a “Bible.”
The way toward greater levels of wealth creation and value storing is through value exchange via cooperative and reciprocal arrangements where, in conjunction, enormous costs are placed upon looters, parasites, and raiders.
Libertarians and Randians: stop your mental masturbating as justification to loot the commons and selfishly “live your life for its own sake,” get off your asses, put you morality were your mouth is, and create net values for yourself, others, and society—and make anyone regret that they ever tried to mess with it. Dismiss mommy’s basement-like libertarian angst, intellectually jerking-off in squalor. Radriods: get out of your ivory towers for the purpose of preaching to choirs. Stop asking “what would Ayn do?” and go do stuff and learn form your mistakes.