[Victoribus Spolia]

Always nice to see someone actually using that organ between their ears.

Thank you sir.

Very reasonable ... But I don't think a "Natural Order Society" is possible given the present level of human consciousness.

I think we may diverge a bit on the presumption that human consciousness has positively evolved. I tend to view the collective movement of western man as a process of involution caused by a sustained state of high-time preference facilitated by the involvement of governments in what would otherwise be natural and free human interactions.

That is, since the dawn of the 20th century, the west has been devolving regarding the quality of humans. If conditions would persist as they are now for another 200 years, our race will be reduced to a level of sophistication and moral eloquence on par with the chimpanzee.

The next possible window for a "Natural Order" society will be the colonization of space.

I don't think the life expectancy of the international order will allow a time-frame that can facilitate such a great leap for mankind. I believe the path of financial insolvency that has been pursued by western nations since WWI is accelerating and terminal. There is no cure and death is immanent. Before I die, I fully expect to see the collapse of the current world order and revival of a new natural-order society that will likely exist for the next millennium.

Have we come far enough to compromise and cooperate in unity? And resist opportunistic greed?

Absolutely not. In fact, I believe unity is worse now than it was under decentralized conditions. When factions competing for power always fear the use of the state's mechanism to coerce them, you create an embittered polarization that cannot be simply reversed. With the exception of something that is immanent and clearly threatening our species collectively, we will not see increased unity, but increased disunity until the states of the west collapse under their own weight.

Good post

Thank you.

my issue is that I gave up on having a stateless society.

No one likes a quitter.

Since we touched on patriarchy, it seems to be the case that more genetics come from the male (and if the woman is not a virgin, RNA can potentially come from multiple males). I suspect it may be as simple as, when genetics are stable we see patriarchy, when they are in flux we see "matriarchy" (which is usually just chaos). The west is mostly matriarchal right now because the genetics were put into a state of flux by mass immigration policies. In developed countries that lack mass immigration, the "patriarchy" is alive and well, whether it is a democracy or communism.

I think matriarchal values ascending can be explained in a far simpler and common-sense way. When the role of the patriarch is replaced with the state, men no longer rule in a traditional sense. This occurred because statists promoted and expanded political rights to women. This was predictable, for in the pursuit to expand their scope and power, publicly owned governments seek to expand their voter base and diversify the list of political causes. This is why the state is also inventing new victim-groups to champion.

Patriarchy assumes male-rule over the family's economic affairs, even the distant family. The state has assumed this role and has also enfranchised women and empowered them against the sex which they once relied upon by natural necessity. That matriarchal characteristics would emerge under such conditions is quite predictable irrespective of biological considerations.

[Zamuel]

I think we may diverge a bit on the presumption that human consciousness has positively evolved.

Yes, I suspect we do.

the involvement of governments in what would otherwise be natural and free human interactions.

There is nothing unnatural about the involvement of governments in human interactions ... Government is a natural human function. The state of government(s) historically reflects the advance of human consciousness.

That is, since the dawn of the 20th century, the west has been devolving regarding the quality of humans.

I would agree that "survival" as a priority has diminished, but would question the significance of that as a value of "Quality." It has been replaced by a rise in compatibility that more than offsets the need for survivability. This is progress. Beyond that you would have to define what you think comprises the "quality of humans."

Before I die, I fully expect to see the collapse of the current world order and revival of a new natural-order society that will likely exist for the next millennium.

This is a common fantasy ...

we will not see increased unity, but increased disunity until the states of the west collapse under their own weight.

Well, it happened to the Roman Empire ... Do you see Trump as "Nero" ?

Zam

[Victoribus Spolia]

There is nothing unnatural about the involvement of governments in human interactions ... Government is a natural human function. The state of government(s) historically reflects the advance of human consciousness.

Why do you think so? I am curious.

Beyond that you would have to define what you think comprises the "quality of humans."

Self-Reliance, Patriarchy, Thrift, Poly-Math Tendencies, Sophistication of Manners, A Unified Set of Morals, Complexity in Dress, A Sense of Honor, Metaphysical Depth, Artistic Complexity, etc.,

In contrast, we are clearly heading towards a degenerate and uncultured idiocracy.

This is a common fantasy

Among students of history and economics, yes.

Well, it happened to the Roman Empire ... Do you see Trump as "Nero" ?

Nero? No. Tiberius Gracchus? Perhaps.

[Zamuel]

There is nothing unnatural about the involvement of governments in human interactions ... Government is a natural human function. The state of government(s) historically reflects the advance of human consciousness. ”

Why do you think so? I am curious.

Government is a human function, we are at heart a cooperative species and have always instituted organized leadership. Tracing the form of this leadership from Patriarchal Clans to Constitutional Democracies reveals the path from primitive to sophisticated consciousness. The "rugged individual" is an aberration. An evolutional reject that does serve a purpose if it can integrate itself. Few of them can.

Self-Reliance, Patriarchy, Thrift, Poly-Math Tendencies, Sophistication of Manners, A Unified Set of Morals, Complexity in Dress, A Sense of Honor, Metaphysical Depth, Artistic Complexity, etc.,

Mostly superficial crap then? How self reliant was Steven Hawking? Not a "Quality" Human?

In contrast, we are clearly heading towards a degenerate and uncultured idiocracy.

I know that feeling ... When I get frustrated I reflect on the fact that much of modern human behavior (in the west anyway) is due to the fact that people now have the time to enjoy idiocy ... degeneracy can be fun you know ... and "culture" is largely a matter of how far the stick is pushed up your ass. Human consciousness overcoming obsolete value judgements. Progress.

Zam

[Victoribus Spolia]

Government is a human function, we are at heart a cooperative species and have always instituted organized leadership. Tracing the form of this leadership from Patriarchal Clans to Constitutional Democracies reveals the path from primitive to sophisticated consciousness. The "rugged individual" is an aberration. An evolutional reject that does serve a purpose if it can integrate itself. Few of them can.

In the sense of groups organized under leadership or a governing power, then I actually agree with this, so when I say I am opposed to a government as unnatural, I am not speaking of governing per se, only a third-party monopolist of coercion with only the public-ownership of such a monopoly of coercion being actually decivilizing.

Obviously, I am opposed to "rugged individualism" as a Patriarchal Neo-Feudalist; however, such a system of governing is decentralized and anti-statist based on our modern conception of a state as being a publicly-owned monopolist of coercion, which is my whole point. I am an Ancap because such facilitates what I would regard as the most fundamental of human values.

How self reliant was Steven Hawking? Not a "Quality" Human?

Well, in a sense, that has to be true as he was terribly disabled and whatever merits he possessed were only possible by the facilitation of various unnatural means (I for one believe his ideas were mostly garbage so he didn't impress me that way either).

Its like you asking me, under a hypothetical scenario, if a disembodied brain that happened to really smart that we also kept alive via a bunch of wires in a big cryo-tube was or was not a quality human being.

In a sense, only a fool would say, without qualification, that such a person was a "quality" person in the same sense that a person who was every bit as an intelligent but also had a body and a whole host of other virtues.

Likewise, given the list i gave, if someone had some of these virtues, while another person had more of them, they are not as quality as that other person.

We, as a society, do not produce quality people in the same manner we once do which is why we are deteriorating as a civilization.

I know that feeling ... When I get frustrated I reflect on the fact that much of modern human behavior (in the west anyway) is due to the fact that people now have the time to enjoy idiocy ... degeneracy can be fun you know ... and "culture" is largely a matter of how far the stick is pushed up your ass. Human consciousness overcoming obsolete value judgements. Progress.

A lot of stupid things that lack a long-term perspective can be fun. Racking up a bunch of credit-card debt in a spending spree is fun, but it lacks good long-term insight. I would say all values can more-or-less be grouped that way.

For these reasons, I deny that we are seeing any real progress right now.

[One Degree]

We have made our lives more convenient. I believe it is incorrect to believe that is better or progress.
We lose an awful lot by making it easy to survive without the help of others being obvious. We have placed a psychological barrier between our interdependence even as we have become even more interdependent.

[Rancid]

How about if a drug dealer knowingly sells my kid a product cut with nastiness, and if my kid is harmed or killed, I can opt to harm or kill him the drug dealer in return?

As horrible as this drug dealer is, he/she has civil rights. You would be in violation of those rights by opting to kill him.

[Decky]

Drug dealers are businessmen, capitalists have no civil rights whatsoever.

[Victoribus Spolia]

As horrible as this drug dealer is, he/she has civil rights. You would be in violation of those rights by opting to kill him

Well, as an AnCap I am advocating for a context where no one technically has any civil rights.

However, my argument in favor of this concept in general (from the perspective of the Non-Aggression Principle) is this, if a drug dealer knowing commits an act of violence against my family, I have the right to retaliate, for he has violated the NAP and forsook his own rights to such protections (hence my response of shooting him would be morally justified).

[Pants-of-dog]

Simply selling someone poison is not an act of aggression.

If your child then chooses to consume said poison, the seller is not at fault.

[One Degree]

Simply selling someone poison is not an act of aggression.

If your child then chooses to consume said poison, the seller is not at fault.

Depends upon the age of the child. Since we are saying ‘child’, then he is not responsible. The adult drug dealer is.

[Pants-of-dog]

Why are the parents not responsible?

[One Degree]

Why are the parents not responsible?

Moving goalposts? You went from the victim is responsible to the parents of the victim is responsible. When is the drug dealer responsible? The community as a whole is responsible for the behavior in their community. Your view is what is destroying this concept with preference for individual rights. The overall good of a community demands the drug dealer be held responsible because he violated the community standards.

[Pants-of-dog]

...and that is why I often ignore you.

[Zamuel]

In the sense of groups organized under leadership or a governing power, then I actually agree with this, so when I say I am opposed to a government as unnatural, I am not speaking of governing per se, only a third-party monopolist of coercion with only the public-ownership of such a monopoly of coercion being actually decivilizing.

Rot is often necessary to promote new growth. I would theorize that a society generally devises the government it requires to facilitate progress ... I'll admit this can be confusing, but history seems to bear out this theorem.

Obviously, I am opposed to "rugged individualism" as a Patriarchal Neo-Feudalist; however, such a system of governing is decentralized and anti-statist based on our modern conception of a state as being a publicly-owned monopolist of coercion, which is my whole point. I am an Ancap because such facilitates what I would regard as the most fundamental of human values.

Fundamental of "Human Values"? Or fundamental of your values? A "publicly owned monopolist of coercion" - yes. But that's a very narrow definition ... you must consider - What are they coercing? Coercion is a valid exercise of power, one that humans respond to readily (regardless of their "quality.") I would submit that as human consciousness has progressed / regressed a correlation between barbarity and subtlety is apparent in our self imposed, internal, coercions. By that standard we have come a long way and are headed in a very healthy direction.

Well, in a sense, that has to be true as he was terribly disabled and whatever merits he possessed were only possible by the facilitation of various unnatural means (I for one believe his ideas were mostly garbage so he didn't impress me that way either).

I don't claim to understand his discoveries, I do understand the value placed on them ... Isn't value a main factor of "Quality?"

In a sense, only a fool would say, without qualification, that such a person was a "quality" person in the same sense that a person who was every bit as an intelligent but also had a body and a whole host of other virtues.

Humanity has (recently) learned that accepting "what is" rather than condemning it for not being what it "should be" produces greater rewards. Another conquest of advanced consciousness over implied morality.

Likewise, given the list i gave, if someone had some of these virtues, while another person had more of them, they are not as quality as that other person.

Conversely, they may have greater value having shed the burden of superficiality. This is a trivial POV argument. It revolves about (largely discredited) morality. (which is one of those things that are slowly rotting away.)

A lot of stupid things that lack a long-term perspective can be fun. Racking up a bunch of credit-card debt in a spending spree is fun, but it lacks good long-term insight.

Insight is certainly lacking ... We need more of it ... it stimulates the economy, redistributes wealth, and justifies government coercion. Not to mention providing lots of jobs.

Zam

[Victoribus Spolia]

Simply selling someone poison is not an act of aggression.

If your child then chooses to consume said poison, the seller is not at fault.

But I said clearly in my example, that the seller willfully and knowingly sold a poisonous product to the unknowing buyer.

Thus, if you willfully and knowingly sell my kid Cocaine that you know is laced with anthrax, and my kids buys it under the presumption that it is simply Cocaine, and he dies, you are a murderer. I should be able to enact retribution.

That is the point.

That is different than if he cut it with baking soda and had no idea that my son might be allergic to it etc. That would in fact be a different matter altogether.

[Pants-of-dog]

But I said clearly in my example, that the seller willfully and knowingly sold a poisonous product to the unknowing buyer.

Thus, if you willfully and knowingly sell my kid Cocaine that you know is laced with anthrax, and my kids buys it under the presumption that it is simply Cocaine, and he dies, you are a murderer. I should be able to enact retribution.

That is the point.

That is different than if he cut it with baking soda and had no idea that my son might be allergic to it etc. That would in fact be a different matter altogether.

So you think sellers should be held accountable for dangers in their goods or services that are not apparent to the average consumer?

[Zamuel]

So you think sellers should be held accountable for dangers in their goods or services that are not apparent to the average consumer?

Wow ... POD contributed something meaningful ... and short too!

Make that "Hidden dangers in their goods" (like the Remington 700's trigger) and I'm in.

Zam

[Rugoz]

If there's the death penalty for dealers, there should also be one for consumers. Starting with people who smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol or snort cocaine. Let's see how long that lasts.

[One Degree]

If there's the death penalty for dealers, there should also be one for consumers. Starting with people who smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol or snort cocaine. Let's see how long that lasts.

Why should people be punished for what they willingly do to themselves?
The drug dealer is harming others. Huge difference from harming yourself.