Non-Ancap Hallucinating an Ancap Argument

 "Especially critical of those that hold to the NAP(non aggression principle), which is political and sociological nonsense."
 https://twitter.com/GraniRau/status/1867325542149894394/

 This is not an argument, so let me provide the argument. The first issue with aggression is that traitors will lie. They will tell you that you are the aggressor, or they will tell you it's not aggression, they're doing it [for your own good]. Hence you need a higher power to define aggression and definitively determine the traitor is the liar. A higher power or pope is certainly not classic anarcho-capitalism. They take a corporeal god for granted. 

 The other solution solving the non-aggression pact is a well-written contract defining aggression in advance. Then revenge is sour and personnel is policy. When two verbally deft adults can come together and agree like that, they're cooperators, not traitors. Nobody was going to try to solve disputes with defection in the first place.

 As a distant second, it deprecates aggression, which is feminine in the worst way. Which is why I call it treachery instead. This also highlights the fact you shouldn't need to define it. Not exactly rocket science. Nobody should have to come together and write up an anti-treachery pact...and yet, here we are. This is homo sapiens. Have you met one before?

 "but the state is what defines property."
 (don't let the state define property - yes it does, but only for slaves and peasants)
 "You say some bit of land or a building or a resource belongs to you, what exactly makes that so? The social framework that established property, that defines and protects your rights."
 https://twitter.com/GraniRau/status/1867325544724877611/

 Incorrect. Yes, that is classic ancap, and that's why I'm a meta-rothbardian. What defines property is security. The capacity for defensive violence. 

"an outsider doesn't care about your internal rules and customs." Or, more importantly, a traitor doesn't care, unless he actively enjoys transgression. Which is why you need a gun or a mercenary. Always build a fence, either abstractly or very literally.

 
 "Point is you don't get an individualist and anarchist basis for property rights."
 https://twitter.com/GraniRau/status/1867325547157532950

Whoopsie doodle! Conquest's first law: try to stay in your lane and not talk shit you don't know anything about!

 "And that means force is what keeps your property from being taken."
 [...]
 
 "Aggression claimed the property in the first place."
 https://twitter.com/GraniRau/status/1867326829947695531

 When I pick up a rock and it becomes mine, it's aggression. Violence! Crime! I stole that rock! (From the earth or something?)
 Proudhon, is that you?
 "In a way the leftists are honest in connecting property and theft."
 Oh hey, it is.

 "You occupied the place, declared it yours, meaning aggression toward anyone else that may want it."
 Here, a heathen delights in using Satan's language.
 Bro, ask Odin about what you just said...
 (It's funny because I'm dead serious.)
 The point is if they try to take your property, they are the aggressor and you're not, regardless of what you do to them to make them stop. If you deliberately misunderstand this point, you're hallucinating. Arguing against a phantasm conjured into a fever dream.

A Mother Worries Pointlessly

 The next entry on the genetic bugs series.

 Women worry, but there's no reason for them to. It's entirely a waste of time and effort. She can't protect her children from any real dangers. If a bear threatens them, all that will happen is she'll get eaten first, with the babe as desert. The things she can [[protect]] her children from are things she shouldn't protect them from. She can protect them from maturity or independence. In divorce-happy countries, she can protect them from having a father or money. She can protect them from risk and failure, thus protecting them from having skills or growth.

 A pile of pointless pain. Worse than pointless, as this is one of the few female emotions that inspire something other than maudlin whining. It inspires real, but harmful, action.

 Recalling again this is due to aeons of dysgenic marriages arranged by men. There were women that didn't suck so hard, but they were shafted on the husband market. 

 Since women physically or psychologically can't take responsibility, her husband is responsible for ensuring all her worry-induced sabotage is suppressed. Generally he has to be proactive and successfully predict it. It helps to be manipulative. Don't tell her you're suppressing her worries because woman, distract and discombobulate her, make it seem like it's [helping] or whatever. She should never find out that you hold her worrying in contempt, or she'll get passive-aggressive and hide her self-absorbed [accidental] sabotage worse than she already does. In a majority of families, the mother dying in childbirth is one of the best possible events, ensuring their future prosperity.

 

 Imagine a species where the mother wasn't one of the major hazards children need to protect themselves against. 

 See also: get her pregnant again, so she's too busy to bother the weaned children. Ensure her daughters start getting pregnant by the time she hits menopause and can't get pregnant anymore, then get her completely absorbed with dealing with the grandchildren. 

 P.S. Men of course also have many harmful instincts, but unlike women, can control themselves. Unlike peasants, men will control themselves.

Rectified Medical Specialists

 If you pay the medicine man when you get sick, the doctor wants you to get sick as often as possible. Ideally, to get sick and stay sick. Sales as a service, uh I mean medicine subscription, no, wait hold on I lost it.

 If you pay the medicine man when you're well and stop paying when you're sick, you want to get healthy as quickly as possible and he wants you to get healthy as quickly as possible, so you can start paying him again. 

 It's obvious, honestly. Nobody who spent more than ten seconds of thought on this would ever do it the first way, unless they wanted their quacks to make them as sick as possible. Nevertheless, I'm told the second way was first invented by traditional chinese medicine. Good for them.

 If you stop paying when sick, then you don't need [[health insurance]]. The treatment itself doesn't cost you anything. 

 Of course, those who refuse to buy into the system and get sick would have to pay full price, and they wouldn't have any money. They would stay sick and/or die. Naturally this is a feature, not a bug. The demographic that will complain anyway is highly predictable...

 Speaking of features with poor optics, if the treatment is expensive, the patient old, and the prognosis poor, the medic may choose to forgo treatment. What if we just let old folks die of old age instead of paying zillions to stuff them full of tubes and then they die anyway.
 If the patient is never going to be well again, the medic has no incentive to treat. 

 As usual, peasants need a lord. You can work this stuff out in the fine print, but the peasant becomes cognitively overloaded. His lord should do the negotiation on his behalf, inform him when he's likely to regret his health choices, tell him what conditions are covered and what isn't, and generally navigate the system on the peasant's behalf.

Let's Imagine Something Nice

 Imagine there was someone on social envy media whose good opinion was worth having.

 Like they offered support to their friends, and didn't just shitpost all day.
 Like posters gave preferred behaviour (e.g. friendly replies) to respectable posters, and didn't act identically toward everyone they don't block.
 Like their good opinion was a valid and reliable prediction of who was respectable.
 What if, after becoming respectable, they would listen to you when you're right? What if you could ask them for things, and then, like, receive them? 

 Then you could go and earn their good opinion. Train, build, profit.

 It's a nice image, isn't it?

Let's All Be Shocked Amateur Parents are Incompetent

"most data shows parenting barely matters inb4 "yeah but my parenting SUPER DUPER matters" kids just grow up to be blends of their parents, with a few mutations and remixes here and there."
 https://twitter.com/_drawthentic_/status/1864461155865121256/

 

 Most parents are incompetent. Further they're not raising their kids, TV and school is raising their kids. 

 If you're competent you can do several things.
 1) Prevent psychological maiming.
 2) Develop virtuous habits (ref: aristotle), so the adult doesn't have to fight their vices
 3) train the child to use their rational faculties instead of acting via emoting
 4) convey skills, so the use of rational strategy results in success

 You can't [civilize] them or [[instill values]]. Those are impossible even if you're the best parent possible. You can't change the OCEAN values much but if the child is a thinker instead of a knee-jerker it doesn't much matter. 

 

 

 

 Naturally, in Democratic, Tyrannous, or Lead Man times, well over 99% of parents are incompetent. Skilled, trained parents are rare even during optimum golden ages. 

 It doesn't matter how good of a parent you are, if your kids spend 8 hours at school or doing homework, then 8 hours watching TV or tiktok memes.
 "I'm [[instilling values]]!!!1!" "...are you homeschooling?" (Or rather, unschooling.) No they aren't. At most 7% of the population doesn't send their kids off to be tortured by pedophiles at the concentration camps. See also: covid vaccination rates. "Weird why is my traumatic parenting (six weekends a year) not overriding the concentration camp's traumatic parenting." Who could have predicted this. 

 (Not someone who doesn't engage in rational predictions, for example.) 

 

 When they say kids are [resilient] what they mean is the trauma doesn't show up right away. They keep acting based on semi-instinctive programming for a while, making it nontrivial to connect a psychological scar and the damage that causes it. E.g. spanking is traumatic parenting, it results in an adult with low impulse control and interrupts the development of [faith], they can't keep their word. The child already had low impulse control - it's not like the kid didn't know you're a psychopathic, violent, deviant traitor, yet they broke the rules anyway, because undeveloped brain. Even if the damage was instant you wouldn't notice the difference. Their habit of being [[happy]] when they're not breaking the rules won't change right away. Only after their lives are ruined in accordance with their artificial ADHD and failed attempts to copy parent-child violence when up against peers.

 Parents are able to wield insane levels of psychological pressure. You can use this to get the kids into good habits, as a form of skill (not personality) training. What if my parents had trained me in the one-plate system before adulthood, so it became a crib virtue? The one-plate system is: do dishes before you eat, and never get out a clean plate if there's already a used plate you can clean. Like the rest of us dirty vice-raised children of Democracy, I naturally don't do dishes, and let them pile up in the sink - unless I use one-plate discipline, which, as it turns out, is way easier than trying to do dishes after eating.

 I suppose, more importantly, interrupt the development of vices. If your kid starts developing a bad habit, stop them. By process of elimination, they will develop good habits. Normally it's easy to interrupt a bad habit by pointing out the negative consequences. The child can't easily connect the to, and that's what parents are for.

 Of course this presupposes the parent can tell the difference between good and bad habits, a skill I've never seen demonstrated. A Lead Age parent is also a child and has no idea which habits have harmful consequences. Every time someone tried to give me a good habit, it was bad. Actively damaging. Incompetent amateurs. E.g. never do your homework, it's a bad habit. Doing dishes after eating so that strangers don't use mean words is a bad habit. 

 By default the so-called adult makes decisions based entirely on what decision gives them the good feels in the moment. They don't think about the results at all, let alone how the results will feel in the future. Usually even the feels are restricted. They only emotionally care about what journalists would write about the action, if it showed up in the news. "Will some representative stranger approve of my intent? Or will I be shamed?"

 First: don't do it in public, so nobody can shame you, because they don't notice you're doing it. Secure your shit.

 The ability to make decisions that feel weird, for strategic gain, is a superpower. Aristotle was wrong about man being the rational animal. Becoming rational means you transcend humanity.

 It's just a skill, though. Like lifting weights. You try it, it doesn't work at first. You keep trying, doing various exercises, then it works more, then it works all the time. Just training. 

 In particular, it's important that the child recognizes when they want something because it's ingroup and not because it's logical. Ingroup signalling is uniformly harmful parasitism, benefitting some politician at the cost of the group members.

 The wise parent provides this training for their children. You can check very easily. Can you sit in a chair upside-down? Can you just do weird things merely to demonstrate your ability to make arbitrary decisions?
 Once arbitrary decision-making is unlocked, it's merely a matter of making the correct arbitrary decision. Which is again a skill. There's some heuristics, you just tell the kid the heuristics. Don't spend more effort on improving the decision than you gain from making the optimal decision, for example. If you can't tell, then go find out. If you can't cheaply find out, then it's not important. If you get analysis paralysis, clear your mind, then look again, and choose based on whatever pro or con comes to attention first. E.g. if you can't choose between two cars, and you notice wing mirrors first, choose based on the best wing mirrors. Almost always, the cheapest, most profitable way to choose between two alternatives is to try both of them, unless choosing wrong can cause permanent harm. Just try eating meat. Just try eating, I dunno, peaty or whatever. It won't kill you, it will learn you.

 The hardest part is documenting all the unlabelled intuitions, because nobody has words for all the thousand flavours of intuition - or even for one flavour, for that matter, so everyone gets to reinvent the wheel. In particular it's a good idea to learn the intuitions that predict permanent harm. 

 In theory, adults know things. They can say, "I want [x]," then go perform actions that are likely to lead to [x]. They can also deal with the risks and costs of not obtaining [x]. 

 Then, when your child wants [x], you can teach them how to easily obtain it, letting them skip all the trial and error. 

 Have skills. Teach your son those skills. Then they get what they want.

 P.S. Narcissism. Narcissists choose based solely on the social identity of the kind of person who acts that way. Everything they do is a virtue signal, and whether it [works] at its superficial goal is irrelevant. In particular, a scholar narcissist can't ever look stupid, no matter how smart the action is. Since dunning-kruger is real, that's a big problem. Would rather look rich than have a lot of money. Would rather look tough than win fights. Narcissism.
 If they do something to look tough and it doesn't make them look tough, they instantly become suicidal. Can't handle failure. Even if it genuinely causes them to be tough.

 

 

 

 Of course, the primary reason parents are bad parents is because they want to be bad parents. Supply meeting demand. They claim so loudly that they want the best for their kids precisely to hide the fact they want the worst. "How can I get my son to respect me?" Is in fact, "How can I get my son to respect me despite being an active hindrance to their health and welfare?" Certainly, that is a tricky question. "How do I abuse and torment my children and have them support me in my old age and call and visit anyway?" Rockets are easy compared to this, but scientists are working hard on the question.
 Parents already know how to have happy and respectful kids the easy way. They're not interested, they want to have it without earning it. They want to be so high status their kids have to treat them well even if they do everything wrong, and would rather die than give up on that dream.

Feminine Defeat in Caino Masochiens

 When a woman hears another woman say something, she doesn't think, "Is that true?" Nor does she think any kind of equivalent, nothing that could be steelmanned to true vs. false. She thinks, "Why did she say that?" Reality is irrelevant. It's all about subjective motivation. Whenever a woman says something, it's because she wants something. She has some self-absorbed goal she's trying to satisfy. 

 The problem is that women have very poor social skills. She's trying to manipulate you, but she's bad at manipulation. You can't just do the obvious thing. If you like her, you have to help her manipulate you. Have to figure out what she wants. Have to figure out the motivation behind her words. Then you have to transmute the words into something that would manipulate you into doing what she wants, then imagine she said that instead of what she actually said. 

 If you don't like her, you can say, "Ah, you're trying to get me to [x]." She will then deny it, which is how you know you're right. You then ignore her denial and announce your intention to not do it. 

 Some say this is training for children. Children are also self-absorbed, have no ability to and thus no interest in knowing the truth, and (unlike women) have deep, important cravings they need help to satisfy. They will try to manipulate you because they have no other option, but they haven't even hit puberty yet and are awful at manipulation. You have to help them manipulate you, or you functionally neglect your children.

 Another theory states women are plain incompetent due to aeons of misbreeding. Bad arranged marriages. Women are in fact not trying to manipulate you. She hates it when she can manipulate you. She's trying to attempt to manipulate you and fail. If women were into boxing they would deliberately and only pick fights with guys twice their weight because they love getting beat up. Liking victory is masculine, thus liking defeat is feminine. [[[Polarity]]]. She loves being reminded that you are far more powerful than she is. The more forcefully she can make you remind her, short of permanent injury, the happier she is. Meaning, if she likes you, most of the time she's trying to manipulate you into getting into a conflict with her so you can win. The manipulation is incompetent on purpose. It's supposed to fail. 

 It would make sense that women would want to filter out mates that functionally neglect their children, but in mortals women don't get to choose their husbands except in the most degenerate societal hellholes. The filter should have no effect and hasn't for at least a million years.

 You can tell it's dysgenic due to how incompatible mothers are with sons. She will try to manipulate him into getting into a fight with her so she will lose. Even 8-year-old males are more powerful than [[adult]] females. I just now said defeat is feminine, but it bears repeating.
 He reads it as his mother being needy and, being a filial son, tries to fulfill her (semi) overtly stated needs. If the father doesn't protect the son from his mother, the son will become twisted, depraved, and weak. Self-hating and vulnerable to incompetent manipulation. An [incel]. She tries to make her manipulation even more obvious, he notices her needs aren't being met and thinks he was incompetently disobedient, so he doubles down...

 Secondly, it never occurs to her to go meta. She could learn to manipulate men into wanting to get into conflict with her. She could bait men with manipulations they actually see through. She could use pavlovian conditioning to ensure men find winning against her rewarding. She doesn't, though. She triples down on making the incompetent manipulation sound sincere. She makes your victory as unpleasant for you as possible. Femoids are retards. 

 Thirdly, manipulating a man into making him win against her is sexual. When a mother tries to fail-manipulate her son she is flirting with him. All mothers do this if their husband doesn't prevent them. Utterly revolting.

Public School Teachers are Twisted Mutants

 There's two kinds of schools. The kind of school where the creepy and offputting pedophile stands out, and the kind where that behaviour is normalized. I had the pleasure of attending the latter kind of institution. All my teachers were twisted weirdos. 

 I attended potentially the best institutions in my oblast equivalent. Most rigorous, least violent, etc etc. Every teacher was a paragon of ill-health. Fat and waddling or skeletal and hunched. Asymmetric, with extremely off-putting mannerisms, but they were all like that, so it was locally normal. It is not at all surprising that teachers become bluehairs. They were bluehairs all along but the hair dye wasn't allowed yet, so they had to find some other fashion disaster to partake in.

 Deliberate weirdo normalization. Anti-socialization. 

 One of the things you can learn in school is that karens are pedophile-adjacent. Karens are not merely grit in the gears. It's lawful evil. They know asking for the manager is obnoxious. Being obnoxious is the point. Asking for the manager doesn't get you kicked out, unlike other forms of obnoxiousness, which is why they choose that one. They can milk it. Deliberately antisocial. They fight when it's bad, not when, for example, their kids are being sexually abused.
 Every karen is dolores umbridge. Teachers are supposed to be umbridge, but with enough restraint that the abuse can be passed off as [discipline]. If your teacher isn't a socially disastrous health-hating abusive mutant, the administration doesn't like them and will try to marginalize or dispose of them. With the full cooperation of their [[[peers]]].

 Which ones were the literal kiddy-diddlers in my schools? Statistically guaranteed there was one, but I dunno which it was. They blended right in. Pedophile normalizers.
 Wait, maybe it was the stinko. The french teacher with the body odour so atrocious it sank into the classroom. Female, naturally. Like the school was pulling homeless bums off the street and making them instructors. She was marginally more off-putting than everyone else.

 When women accuse some dude of being creepy, it's always a laugh, since they were raised by the creepiest fucks imaginable. Why, or indeed how, is anyone not supposed to be creepy? It would be very strange if any well-schooled male wasn't sexually bizarre, it's just that chicks like some of them anyway. 

 Untested hypothesis: not acting like a creepy fuck, the way everyone else does, is a huge dating market advantage. 

 The point isn't really to condemn schools. Naturally every society will have a twisted bottom class, and they're likely to aggregate somewhere or another. The point is to condemn parents, to condemn the wider society.
 Kids: "But I don't want to be kidnapped by the creepy pedophile strangers and tortured with pointless boring humiliation rituals."
 Parents: "You'll get kidnapped and you'll like it! Impress your pedophile so you can get a [[good job]]!" The truancy laws were all repealed. You can just homeschool. They choose not to.

 The twisted deviants will aggregate somewhere, and this society has decided to aggregate them as the guardians of children. 

 We learn something else at school. Or rather, by observing school. This industrial child abuse system is compatible with every society. Given the innovation, every society starts celebrating their mutant child-deformers. Every society has the cancer of black government because they prefer evil to good.  

 Secure your shit. Defend yourself against your society. Defend yourself against your government. Defend yourself against your species. 

New World Slaver Subsidies

 The meme: slavery prevents the industrial revolution due to lack of innovation or due to inefficient use of labour.

 The Reality: slavery prevents industrial investment because slavers keep slaves alive. 

 If you read my descriptions of slaves, it sounds like slaves are more trouble than they're worth. That's because they are; cue midwit meme. To use Communist terms, they're cost centres, not profit centres. The more slaves your society takes, the poorer it will become. E.g. the arab slave trade resulted in arabian zones falling into permanent third-world conditions. 

 If you have slaves, you don't have any money left over to invest. It doesn't matter how prone to innovation you are if you can't afford to buy the innovation. 

 Why did the north win the war of northern aggression? Largely because it was rich. Why was the south so poor? Propping up so many inherently unprofitable slaves. It is likely that the cotton fields only survived due to government subsidy. Same way modern voters are almost all net tax consumers. 

 Hey, let's check. "Money flowed from banks, many newly formed, on promises of “other-worldly” profits and overnight returns. Banks in New York City, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and even London offered lines of credit to anyone looking to buy land in the Southwest." https://www.americanyawp.com/text/11-the-cotton-revolution/
 Hey look, logic works. You can buy a cotton farm, provided you're not spending your own money.

 "many planters simply leapfrogged from one area to the next, abandoning their fields every ten to fifteen years after the soil became exhausted." https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-ushistory1os2xmaster/chapter/the-economics-of-cotton/
 lel
 This "wildly profitable" "cash crop" couldn't even pay the maintenance on the land they used to grow it. 

 At the time, the cotton was exported, and this functionally paid for government tariffs. Demand for cotton exports is transmuted to supply of other imports, which were taxed. In other words a tax-farming scheme. Classic, if misnamed, [[regulatory capture]]. Effectively charge tariffs on cotton, then subsidize the growing of cotton to maximize tariffs.
 It seems this scheme was previously run on tobacco, which resulted in a permanent tobacco price crash (after many, many temporary depressions). It included a direct export tariff on tobacco, for example. Both tobacco and cotton were grown via agricultural looting, exhausting the fields and moving to the next.
 Tobacco clearly had its demand juiced by government command of religion. The correct solution was for the british to give up smoking. It's not even a real luxury, let alone a necessity. They did the opposite. Likewise one must suspect the textile industry was juiced, thus juicing cotton demand, thus enhancing tariff revenue. 

 Tobacco and cotton farmers could afford slaves because the government paid for them.

 

 Official ignorance ensures the [researchers] aren't looking for the slaves subsidies, so it's hard to find direct evidence. Perhaps the primary subsidy was the fact the government would return your escaped slaves for you. Likewise, you could sell a slave, using a government-secured trade channel. The workers couldn't quit without your permission, and if you wanted them to quit, you got paid for it. The security, even for natural slaves, is not affordable unless society at large pays for it on your behalf. American colonies thus maximized slave labour so as to leech from this pig trough as thoroughly as possible, and this cancerous parasitism resulted in repeated and severe depressions. 

 Internal slave trade worked exactly like a stock market. The net social benefit of trading stock, whether securities or slave, is zero. However, speculators can use the system to take money from dupes, especially fractional-reserve loans. They run away with the money, leaving some poor moron stuck between his worthless stock and the bank's counterfeit-money enforcement.

 Although I highlight security, slaves per se are worth less to society than the food and air they cost to maintain. With whips you can make them work, but this work is worth less than securing the whips &c. Without whips they won't produce, and it works out to be almost exactly the same drain on the wider society.
 Let them starve. Don't take prisoners in war, just kill them. If you're feeling merciful, execute them quickly instead of letting them starve slowly. 

 Almost all social problems come down to subsidizing the life of someone who should be dead. Feeding the non-working, or securing the criminal.