A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

For those topics that don't have a place in any of the other forums.

Moderator: Aitrus

User avatar
Aitrus
Moderator
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

Post by Aitrus »

Bloobs,
I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm trying to talk this out with people whom I respect as intellectual individuals. It's not my movement - it's a movement that's caught my interest and that I'm trying to explore from an intellectual standpoint.

I agree with you that IQ alone isn't the cause for success or failure, as well as race / gender, etc not the cause either - but I do think they play a part. But one side of the aisle is making it all about race / gender / identity intersectionality and victimization, rather than looking at all the data. They seem to be lying by omission by cherry picking data that supports their claim, or ignoring the data altogether and using emotional arguments instead. Propertarians view the Left's / academia's use of these falsehoods (they call it "baiting into hazard") as supportive of the reasonableness of their position, and appear to instead try to look at all the data as a whole.

Using Cali as an example: if Cali is doing as well as you say, why wouldn't they want to separate and make the most of what they have? As a state, they pay the most into the US treasury via taxation, and resent the remaining Right-leaning elements within their society and government. Why wouldn't they want the freedom to install every social program they want without worrying that red-state congressmen might get in the way - either at the Federal, State or Local level?

I don't think they're trying to do what the Nazis did (extermination of all who don't meet a certain physical ideal). They are saying "Here's the rules we propose to live under. If you don't want to participate in such a society, that's fine - do what you want, but stop trying to rule over us."

Also, consider this: Propertarians point out that many countries have practiced eugenics (and some continue to do so - China, for example). Scandinavian countries are extremely racially and culturally homogeneous, which contributes greatly to the happiness and success they have experienced. For hundreds of years they practiced eugenics due to executing the civilizationally unfit (criminals), severely limiting immigration, and restricting the ability of the physically / mentally unfit to reproduce (among other things). It's through eugenics that they are able to now have the socialistic programs they have - because everybody is racially and culturally similar and agree on a certain way of life.

That's not so with the US. In contrast, the Propertarians argue that since the end of WWII the US has practiced dysgenics: "tending to promote survival of or reproduction by less well-adapted individuals (such as the weak or diseased) especially at the expense of well-adapted individuals (such as the strong or healthy)" (definition source: Merriam Webster). The Propertarians argue that moral authority derives from doing what's necessary to protect one's property - including the civilization and society that one's ancestors created - as that is the responsibility the current generation has to future generations.
Seasonal Musings 2022: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19005
Recommended Reading: http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474
"It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters" Epictetus

User avatar
Aitrus
Moderator
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

Post by Aitrus »

Thanks for chiming in, userque. Always look forward to your thoughts. Thank you for that article on the age of empires, by the way. Look forward to reading it when I get the chance.

According to Encyclopedia Brittanica:

"Racism, also called racialism, the belief that humans may be divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races”; that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features; and that some races are innately superior to others." Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/racism

As the excerpt from Hive Mind pointed out, it seems as if scientists and psychologists are beginning to learn that race may indeed have implications for one's abilities / potential. What if this turns out to be the case? Does that mean that those who make decisions and judgements based on those facts evil? Or is it the desire to eliminate those who are of X race that is evil? If "racism" also includes "dividing into separate and exclusive biological entities called 'races'", then wouldn't anybody who divides people up by color in any way be a "racist"? Or do you think it's only when somebody hates somebody of another race - or of an entire race in general - to be "racist"?

And I agree - unless something is done, the wedge of denial is going to crack the country apart sooner or later. The problem may very well be that each side appears to be denying different things, and so we can't agree on what needs to be fixed, and so each side can't make any progress because they can't agree on what the problem is.

bosco - can you point me to the data showing that IQ and race aren't linked? The chart I referenced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics seems fairly self-explanatory. I agree that one's race doesn't determine your exact IQ, but the data seems to say that it may have a part to play in where the bell curve of possibilities will lie for members of each race. Also, there are doubts that diversity for diversity's sake isn't all it's cracked up to be. I would argue that diversity of thought is more important than diversity of race / color / gender / etc.

Harvard professor: http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/id ... diversity/

Results of a Danish study: https://summit.news/2019/10/07/new-peer ... -strength/
Seasonal Musings 2022: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19005
Recommended Reading: http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474
"It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters" Epictetus

User avatar
stilljammi
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2019 3:59 pm

Re: A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

Post by stilljammi »

bloobs wrote:Besides, isn't your movement essentially espousing the same principles and concepts as what the nazis promoted in 1930's Germany with their racial categorization policy based on their "untermenschen" arguments? That we are so different not just horizontally but "vertically" as well--that it requires that we be split up geographically to promote the peace (albeit the untermenschen or the "sub-humans" do not have a say in where they are sent to).

Since we all know where that movement ended up in 1945, perhaps we should all be wary of what we're dealing with here.
That's the key point. The website reads like a manifesto and the video left out all the unpleasant bits. That's one of the first issues I have.
Aitrus wrote:stilljammi - Are their arguments racist/sexist/antisemetic, or are they simply stating scientifically validated facts from studies, research, and history? If these facts are true and since the truth hurts, are we immediately disgusted in a reactionary way by these ideas only because we've been lied to and programmed to by society via the education system and reinforced by the media / Hollywood? If we had not been so programmed, would we be able to see the data for what it is and see the points they bring up as valid without immediately dismissing them as distasteful? I hope you can see my confusion on this, and why I'm still undecided on this point - part of the reason I reached out to you guys.
I understand that we should study issues even if the answer might be one we do not like. Questioning the fundamentals is often necessary, however, tremendous claims require tremendous data. This is not that: It seems to me that this movement was set up with a solution in mind and then worked backward to concoct this ridiculous conclusion that some people/races/classes are not equal. That premise is justified with "THE MEDIA DUPED U!!" The data did not lead to the conclusion, the conclusion lead to the data. Everything on the right seems to be obsessed with conspiracy. It always ends up there. We make up conspiracy theories as apart of the grieving process when we realize we are wrong and we desperately want to be right. Not saying all conspiracies are wrong by nature, but this is not the way rational minds attempt to find truth. You gotta rule everything else out first before you jump to the most improbable explanation.

bosco7
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2019 5:58 pm

Re: A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

Post by bosco7 »

jlozano042 wrote:
Aitrus wrote: And here are their conclusions about who would win such a war:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJh7Ye1Qvc8&t
- From the comments

"AndreKiller1993
1 year ago
One side has millions of guns and military veterans, the other doesn't know which bathroom to use."

Well ... the dude has a point. :lol:
Thats also simplistic. Everyone has guns. And vets fall on all sides of political leanings. I know quite a few ultra liberal vets myself. To suggest that the lower classes fight a civil war amongst themselves while the enfranchised continue to sow discord and steal from the rest. Sounds super logical. Lets fight over crumbs and slave wages. There are no winners in a civil war. Sure maybe some survive longer than others, but your children will suffer the consequences most.

bosco7
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2019 5:58 pm

Re: A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

Post by bosco7 »

Aitrus wrote: bosco - can you point me to the data showing that IQ and race aren't linked? The chart I referenced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics seems fairly self-explanatory. I agree that one's race doesn't determine your exact IQ, but the data seems to say that it may have a part to play in where the bell curve of possibilities will lie for members of each race. Also, there are doubts that diversity for diversity's sake isn't all it's cracked up to be. I would argue that diversity of thought is more important than diversity of race / color / gender / etc.

Harvard professor: http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/id ... diversity/

Results of a Danish study: https://summit.news/2019/10/07/new-peer ... -strength/

IQ tests measure the IQ according to the people that design the test, they are not the arbiters of intelligence, which is why IQ is rarely measured by those types of tests. A better measure is determination and drive. 2)There will always be a counterpoint, a singular study that argues against the 1000s of others. Its better to get an aggregate picture. Of course if you dig into Putnams paper (the harvard prof you quoted), you find this tidbit:

Putnam denied allegations he was arguing against diversity in society and contended that his paper had been "twisted" to make a case against race-conscious admissions to universities. He asserted that his "extensive research and experience confirm the substantial benefits of diversity, including racial and ethnic diversity, to our society."

So, no I don't think you are on the correct path. You are looking for sources to support your hypothesis, not looking to actually disprove your hypothesis, which would make a much stronger argument.

User avatar
stilljammi
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2019 3:59 pm

Re: A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

Post by stilljammi »

Aitrus wrote:
stilljammi wrote:Also, it doesn't explain how the national debt is going to be divided up and transferred under this new system.
I agree - I haven't seen that piece yet either. I assume that under their plan it would be paid out of surplus revenue after the government downsizing, after which taxes are lowered to maintenance levels.
They want to nationalize a bunch of companies (Google, Facebook, insurance companies), nationalize all personal debt, eliminate interest and speculation, end labor unions.
I haven't seen these pieces of the platform yet. Where did you find them?
I meant after we're all divided up, I assume each territory will need to own a piece of the national debt. How is it going to be divided up? By population? By land and resources?

Here are some quotes from the homepage regarding the other areas:
8. Independent contract for YouTube, Facebook, and Google as infrastructure free from advertising.
It nationalizes the Federal Reserve, all Pension Programs, all Consumer Credit, and the Visa-Mastercard Network; converts them to zero interest; creates Treasury accounts for all citizens; maintains money supply and monetary velocity by direct distribution to the citizenry;
And now for some of the unpleasant quotes. You don't need to read them all, pick one and see if it's justifiable. There's a lot of content here, but I'm trying not to pull things out of context. Some of this stuff is not logical under any context. (https://seconddeclaration.org/the-book/ ... europeans/):
Between the Jews and our Byzantine Church they produced a hostile, conquering religion – but it failed as a political religion and devolved first into a competing religion (Catholicism), then into a conspiratorial religion (Protestantism) and is currently devolving into a folk religion under American evangelical Protestantism – a ‘faith’ rather than an organized religion.

The next step in the evolution of, and restoration of, our religion is to:

A.) Eradicate hostile competing religions
....
Eugenics of some sort is necessary for shared prosperity. I prefer paying the underclasses not to breed, and not paying them and sterilizing them if they do, and eliminating the migration of labor to capital and requiring the migration of capital to labor instead; maintaining as close to a homogeneous society as possible. If we have small states with these policies we will have marginal inequality – inequality is necessary for the organization of invention, investment, production, distribution, trade, and savings. But people disproportionately resist redistribution when it consists of parasitism.

Women have a genetic ‘incompetence’ in political matters as they evolved to protect their offspring and other women’s offspring REGARDLESS of their merit as a means of surviving their ‘ownership’ by competing bands of males.

So just as men are noticeably incompetent with child-rearing, women are noticeably incompetent with political matters.
European white sub-race is DEMOGRAPHICALLY superior. Because it is demographically superior it is also institutionally and culturally superior. This is why it’s economically, technologically and militarily superior. That’s because the single best thing you can do to advance your population is shrinking your working, lower, and underclass populations such that the median ability of individuals per calorie of production per capita allows the highest investment in individuals while preserving the rate of return.

Whether White Europeans are genetically superior is questionable. Of the sub-races, only Han/Korean/Japanese, and White Europeans have succeeded in (a) reducing the size of the underclass, and (b) reducing the rate and depth of sexual maturity. The Ashkenazi have, in addition, (c) reversed sexual dimorphism which has proven to be an interesting and novel strategy.
The slaves (Jews) conflated supernatural and philosophical literature, with their law and history, and developed authoritarian supernatural mysticism – beginning with Abrahamism, which subsequently split into Judaism (middle-class/administrative), Christianity (working-class/Levantine and Roman), and Islam (underclass/steppe and desert). This decision was to have profound consequences.

Because of Islam, for the past 1400 years, and Judaism in the form of Marxism/Communism, Abrahamism has been second only to the black plague in accumulated deaths throughout all of history.
Furthermore, this means that within races and within classes, except at the margins, greater status is available WITHIN race than without, and therefore people are incentivized to prefer to act and associate within their races.
I can go on, but I really don't feel like reading any more of this. It's all built on a false premise.

User avatar
userque
Posts: 658
Joined: Mon May 05, 2014 5:43 pm

Re: A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

Post by userque »

Aitrus wrote:Thanks for chiming in, userque. Always look forward to your thoughts.
Likewise Aitrus.
Aitrus wrote:Thank you for that article on the age of empires, by the way. Look forward to reading it when I get the chance.
No rush, it’s an Opinion piece. Something I quickly found that spoke of what I learned long ago.
Aitrus wrote:According to Encyclopedia Brittanica:

"Racism, also called racialism, the belief that humans may be divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races”; that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features; and that some races are innately superior to others." Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/racism
I assume you prefer this definition over the MW one I posted. If so, why?
Doesn’t some of the information you’ve recently posted fall under this definition of racism?
Do you believe as your definition asserts?
"In the land of idiots, the moron is King."

User avatar
Aitrus
Moderator
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

Post by Aitrus »

I understand that we should study issues even if the answer might be one we do not like. Questioning the fundamentals is often necessary, however, tremendous claims require tremendous data. This is not that: It seems to me that this movement was set up with a solution in mind and then worked backward to concoct this ridiculous conclusion that some people/races/classes are not equal. That premise is justified with "THE MEDIA DUPED U!!" The data did not lead to the conclusion, the conclusion lead to the data. Everything on the right seems to be obsessed with conspiracy. It always ends up there. We make up conspiracy theories as apart of the grieving process when we realize we are wrong and we desperately want to be right. Not saying all conspiracies are wrong by nature, but this is not the way rational minds attempt to find truth. You gotta rule everything else out first before you jump to the most improbable explanation.
Good points. I will say that the lead mind behind all of this has posted a recommended Propertarian reading list. I haven't looked at all the titles yet, but it seems like he's spent a lot of years researching this idea and the underpinnings of it.

So perhaps the next question is: regardless of the motivation behind it, does the idea hold water? Set aside the non-PC based arguments of the movement for a moment: does their proposal for a peaceful separation of Right and Left merit serious consideration? Can the idea work if all of the non-PC aspects are taken out of the equation?
Seasonal Musings 2022: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19005
Recommended Reading: http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474
"It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters" Epictetus

User avatar
Aitrus
Moderator
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

Post by Aitrus »

userque wrote: I assume you prefer this definition over the MW one I posted. If so, why?
Doesn’t some of the information you’ve recently posted fall under this definition of racism?
Do you believe as your definition asserts?
I don't really prefer either, just that there seem to be different definitions of what racism is (which might explain why the term is tossed around so casually of late). I tend to operate on the definition that racism is hating / looking down upon / unduly praising individuals based on race - regardless of their actual behaviors, attitude, or abilities. That is, somebody who places race first and foremost in all dealings with any other human is a racist. To me, proclaiming that somebody is great because they are of X race is just as bad as proclaiming that somebody is bad because they are of Y race.

Yes, I'll admit that some of the information I've recently posted could indeed be viewed / interpreted as falling under that definition. It could also be argued that simply discussing / providing data and facts is not itself racist. Keep in mind that I'm not professing a belief in these ideas, just that they are making me think and I'm exploring them within the context of the Propertarian ideas.

So let's take the step of separating racial overtones from those ideas - do they still hold up? Do the Propertarians have a point and a possible solution? If so, then race-based issues aren't the base purpose of the movement, it's merely a facet of the worldview of the people that created it.

Take this example: https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/04/ ... f-defense/

The author here is painting with a wide brush (of course not all members of a given minority behave in these ways) but does he have a point? Have these things happened in our society? Can is his disgust and reaction be regarded as an act of self-defense against what he perceives to be the destruction of the civilization he lives in? And note at the end how he is willing to part ways with white people who believe the same way, not just non-whites, so is it possible that his views aren't racially based, but based on the actions around him that he sees as being perpetrated by mostly minorities, but by whites as well?

So if the above individual is deemed to be racist (I'll admit, not a hard conclusion to jump to), what does that make this person?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsMj8Yp7EUE

I love the intensity his fiery speech - including the "And I'm joinin' 'em!" bit - it made me chuckle the first time I watched it. But you have to ask: if a black preacher sees the same things that the white author above sees, then is it racism on the part of the white author? Or are they both seeing a series of cultural problems that need to be addressed? If it's cultural, then does the act of removing racism and inserting cultural behavior problems change the light in which the Propertarian ideas can be viewed?
Seasonal Musings 2022: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19005
Recommended Reading: http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474
"It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters" Epictetus

User avatar
Aitrus
Moderator
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

Post by Aitrus »

bosco7 wrote: So, no I don't think you are on the correct path. You are looking for sources to support your hypothesis, not looking to actually disprove your hypothesis, which would make a much stronger argument.
Thank you for your thoughts, bosco.

Doesn't a hypothesis have to be laid out along with the proofs that support the creation of it before it can be disproven? And in seeking to disprove it we should be looking for all data - not just that which disproves it, but be aware of that data which reinforces it as well. Looking for only data which disproves a hypothesis is just as biased as looking for only data which proves it, is it not?

In regards to Putnam's article, I don't think he explained how his data demonstrated that "extensive research and experience confirm the substantial benefits of diversity, including racial and ethnic diversity, to our society." I'm wondering if this is an opinion given on his part in order to keep the article PC and less confrontational. It may indeed be so in his peer-reviewed work, but I haven't dug into his research to find out. The article I posted seems to say one thing, then say the opposite - which is why I posted it. The research isn't conclusive either way if diversity is a benefit or not, but we can see the empirical observations within societies that are diverse (the US), societies that are becoming more diverse (much of Europe), and societies that are homogeneous (Scandinavia, Japan, S. Korea).
Seasonal Musings 2022: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19005
Recommended Reading: http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474
"It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters" Epictetus

User avatar
stilljammi
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2019 3:59 pm

Re: A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

Post by stilljammi »

Aitrus wrote:Good points. I will say that the lead mind behind all of this has posted a recommended Propertarian reading list. I haven't looked at all the titles yet, but it seems like he's spent a lot of years researching this idea and the underpinnings of it.

So perhaps the next question is: regardless of the motivation behind it, does the idea hold water? Set aside the non-PC based arguments of the movement for a moment: does their proposal for a peaceful separation of Right and Left merit serious consideration? Can the idea work if all of the non-PC aspects are taken out of the equation?
I don't think so. It's better than a civil war, and while I'm generally a pessimist, I really don't think we're at that point yet. Some people have little faith in this country.

What's the point of this country? We believe we all should be able to say what we want without the threat of law. We should be able to do whatever we want as long as it doesn't harm others. The Confederates violated this idea and we fought a Civil War over it.

Both the left and right today are responsible for eroding the idea of free speech, we need to have a conversation about that. I think we're starting that conversation on our own, without any leader. We'll see where it goes.

But let's say all the data from this site is correct and all of its conclusions are based in reality. I could grant you all of that, but it doesn't mean this website's solution to those issues is correct. Many of its solutions would take away freedom of speech, not grant more. Some of those solutions to the problems it purports are straight out of the Third Reich. Again, they advocate for mandatory paternity tests. How is that even enforceable? They don't want two consenting adults to marry and reproduce. They advocate for eugenics. The website explicitly states it doesn't believe in freedom of religion and wants to establish a white theocracy: https://seconddeclaration.org/the-book/ ... education/. No, none of this is a solution to the problems it claims we have.

And let's say we take out all that crazy fascist stuff, what are we left with? The answer is: pretty much what we have now. A weak federal government and strong local and state governments.

User avatar
Aitrus
Moderator
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

Post by Aitrus »

stilljammi wrote: I meant after we're all divided up, I assume each territory will need to own a piece of the national debt. How is it going to be divided up? By population? By land and resources?

Here are some quotes from the homepage regarding the other areas:
8. Independent contract for YouTube, Facebook, and Google as infrastructure free from advertising.
It nationalizes the Federal Reserve, all Pension Programs, all Consumer Credit, and the Visa-Mastercard Network; converts them to zero interest; creates Treasury accounts for all citizens; maintains money supply and monetary velocity by direct distribution to the citizenry;
Ah, I see. They treat companies that are acting as if they were public infrastructure and expect to receive the legal protections of such (YouTube, Facebook, Google) as actual infrastructure. In effect, they are saying that companies such as these can't receive these protections and still be treated as / behave as private entities. Got it.

As for the Federal Reserve, they propose to cut out the middle man and enable loans to be made directly with the Treasury - the source of our currency. This eliminates the massive credit industry that creates money out of thin air and charges loaners a fee for doing so. What's wrong with this setup? Why shouldn't otherwise creditworthy people be able to take a loan out directly from the Treasury and pay it back with very minimal interest (if any)?
I can go on, but I really don't feel like reading any more of this. It's all built on a false premise.
I think that the point he's trying to make of all those things is that we've all been fed false promises and lies, and he lays them out accordingly. He's saying that it's not his statements that are the false premise, it's what we've been taught that is the false premise. It's hard to swallow because we've all been taught otherwise.

I'm thinking about it this way: what if he's right? Doesn't that possibility mean that we have to understand his proposals and reasons from his perspective, and only then can we begin to accurately refute them? After all, one can't understand the depravity of Hitler, the cruelty of Stalin, and the craziness of Caligula if one doesn't read their own words and understand their actions from their own perspective. We understand why those men did what they did, but only because we've gone through that process.

Could it also be that the Propertarianism author is saying that he understands why people are doing what they are doing (rioting, looting, undermining our civilization, etc), and is thus making his case for separation from them?
Seasonal Musings 2022: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19005
Recommended Reading: http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474
"It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters" Epictetus

bosco7
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2019 5:58 pm

Re: A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

Post by bosco7 »

Aitrus wrote:
bosco7 wrote: So, no I don't think you are on the correct path. You are looking for sources to support your hypothesis, not looking to actually disprove your hypothesis, which would make a much stronger argument.
Thank you for your thoughts, bosco.

Doesn't a hypothesis have to be laid out along with the proofs that support the creation of it before it can be disproven? And in seeking to disprove it we should be looking for all data - not just that which disproves it, but be aware of that data which reinforces it as well. Looking for only data which disproves a hypothesis is just as biased as looking for only data which proves it, is it not?
Appreciate the conversation as well. No, the best method, the strongest method, is to try to disprove rather than prove. And when you are no longer able to disprove, then the hypothesis holds water. A lot of science research nowadays looks to prove rather than disprove, but that's another question and discussion. For your thoughts, you can't really gather evidence unless you are gathering data. Looking at others opinions of data collected is not data. Evidence to suggest that diversity strengthens a society could be gathered historically. I don't have those sources for you, as its not my argument to make. I'm just trying to help you find a better path. The there path leads to a lot of destruction and turmoil, and I doubt a better society would emerge through that fire. Would you suggest all different groups segregate to different areas of the country, who's choosing who goes where? Also, even if a society is homogeneous, people will inevitably find some reason to kill each other (see ireland, rwanda...). I think we have a great opportunity to move forward and embrace our differences, learn, meld. Otherwise we will never learn to accept things that deviate from our beliefs. If we always fight against those with beliefs, colors, races, etc different than our own, in the end you have a tribe of fifty that think and look and live like you. Is that what you want? because its not attainable in a world of 7 billion. I guess some might be attracted to the stone age lifestyle, and for those, there are plenty of spaces in backwoods wilderness. Good luck. I'd rather move forward with the 7 billion than regress into nothing.

User avatar
Aitrus
Moderator
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

Post by Aitrus »

stilljammi wrote: And let's say we take out all that crazy fascist stuff, what are we left with? The answer is: pretty much what we have now. A weak federal government and strong local and state governments.
I don't think that this is what we currently have. I think we have a crazy-strong federal government, and a slightly less strong state government, and even less strong local government. I don't think that's what the Founders had in mind. Fascism is also strongly pro-government, this Propertarianism proposal seems to explicitly argue against that.

As for freedom of expression, Propertarians propose that freedom of truthful speech is what needs to be allowed, not freedom of any speech. Doing so would mean that the social conversations on issues would be made up of more truthfulness and data-based rather than half-truths and deception. I also like the part where media, politicians, and judges can be taken to court for violations of reciprocity - thus making our leaders more careful and mindful in their actions and words.

I do admit that a good deal of what they propose is hard to swallow. Here's my question: what's a better solution that can be achieved under the social conditions we now have? Or is it all just a futile exercise and we're just doomed to conflict sooner rather than later?
Seasonal Musings 2022: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19005
Recommended Reading: http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474
"It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters" Epictetus

User avatar
Aitrus
Moderator
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: A movement that I've been keeping an eye on...

Post by Aitrus »

bosco7 wrote: Appreciate the conversation as well. No, the best method, the strongest method, is to try to disprove rather than prove. And when you are no longer able to disprove, then the hypothesis holds water. A lot of science research nowadays looks to prove rather than disprove, but that's another question and discussion. For your thoughts, you can't really gather evidence unless you are gathering data. Looking at others opinions of data collected is not data. Evidence to suggest that diversity strengthens a society could be gathered historically. I don't have those sources for you, as its not my argument to make. I'm just trying to help you find a better path. The there path leads to a lot of destruction and turmoil, and I doubt a better society would emerge through that fire. Would you suggest all different groups segregate to different areas of the country, who's choosing who goes where? Also, even if a society is homogeneous, people will inevitably find some reason to kill each other (see ireland, rwanda...). I think we have a great opportunity to move forward and embrace our differences, learn, meld. Otherwise we will never learn to accept things that deviate from our beliefs. If we always fight against those with beliefs, colors, races, etc different than our own, in the end you have a tribe of fifty that think and look and live like you. Is that what you want? because its not attainable in a world of 7 billion. I guess some might be attracted to the stone age lifestyle, and for those, there are plenty of spaces in backwoods wilderness. Good luck. I'd rather move forward with the 7 billion than regress into nothing.
All good points and food for thought, bosco. Thank you.
Seasonal Musings 2022: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19005
Recommended Reading: http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474
"It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters" Epictetus

Locked

Fund Prices2024-03-28

FundPriceDayYTD
G $18.15 0.05% 1.05%
F $19.08 -0.06% -0.74%
C $82.21 0.11% 10.55%
S $82.43 0.30% 6.92%
I $42.57 -0.24% 5.95%
L2065 $16.38 0.02% 8.37%
L2060 $16.39 0.02% 8.38%
L2055 $16.39 0.02% 8.38%
L2050 $32.73 0.01% 6.95%
L2045 $14.91 0.02% 6.58%
L2040 $54.38 0.02% 6.22%
L2035 $14.34 0.02% 5.79%
L2030 $47.67 0.02% 5.38%
L2025 $13.15 0.03% 3.43%
Linc $25.61 0.03% 2.82%

Live Charts

Pending Allocations

Under development. For now, you may view Pending Allocations by going to "fantasy TSP" and selecting "Leaderboard sort" of "Pending Allocations".