Friday, January 26, 2007

The Natural Selection

Reality naturally seeks an equilibrium.

When something changes, nature will change to balance it out. It will adapt to new conditions, not necessarily consiously.

Adaptation is integrally woven into life on earth. Including adaptation to adaptation. Some species are more adaptive than others, but all adapt.

The market operates the same way. Some businesses are more adaptable than others.

Sometimes things change. A species will die out. The climate will change. Demand for products skyrockets. Businesses fail. Everything around it will respond, and soon they'll be humming along like business as usual. This is the natural order of things, the result of natural selection.

In contrast to natural selection is artificial selection.

Dog breeding is artificial selection.
Ethnic cleansing is artificial selection.
Economic regulations are artificial selection.
Democracy is artificial selection.

When you breed dogs for purity, you end up with some of the wierdest things. Narcalepsy, weak immune systems, psychological disorders. Things break down.

When you cleanse races, you narrow the genepool, and allow what might have actually been a superior race to die out.

When you regulate the market, you limit the conditions of production, and thus limit production, reducing the capacity for people to solve problems. You get problems.

When you use democracy, you limit the potential for more natural selections to appear and be tested in the playpen of real experimentation, possibly eliminating something superior from coming about.

Allowing everything to happen and letting nature sort things out is the most effective way of determining what works and ensuring that it keeps working in changing conditions.

Human knowledge is imperfect, so artificial selections are not always correct. Natural selection will sort this out. Incorrect artificial selections are incompatible with natural selection and will naturally fail.

Incorrect artificial selections which cannot coexist with correct selections not only fail, but make the process of natural selection impossible, and will force something larger to change when nature adapts.

For example, natural selection dictates that the equilibrium price of bread (intersection of supply and demand) is $1 per loaf.

An artificial selection might set the price of bread at $0.90 per loaf. Another might set the price at $1 per loaf. Another might set the price at $1.10 per loaf. These are compatible. One artificial selection does not prevent other artificial selections from being tested. Whichever artificial selection is correct will be rewarded. The 90 cent loaf will lose revenue and sell out before demand is met, the $1.10 loaf will undersell, while the $1 loaf will sell well and offer profits. The profits are maximized at $1.

Another artificial selection might be that bread producers are more important than everyone else, therefore nobody shall sell bread at less than $2 per loaf. This is incompatible with other options. The correct artificial selection is impossible to test in the real world. So something bigger will change. People will buy less bread. People will make less bread.

Reality WILL assert itself, whether you like it or not. And if you don't let it change when it "wants" to, it's going to change some other way, and probably going to do so in a way that brings worse consequences than you sought to prevent.

It makes sense to allow all potential selections to be tested as natural selections. To do this requires tolerance of other potential selections. No potential selection is inherently superior to any other potential selection until it has been tested against natural selection and chosen. Whites are not inherently the superior race. Equality is not inherently superior to class division. If you believe they are, then the only way to know for sure is to let natural selection pass judgement, not to attempt to prevent all others from being tested, as should you be wrong, you will force something bigger to change, and the bigger the change, the smaller the pool of natural selections which will survive that change.

Some things must be allowed to succeed.
Some things must be allowed to fail.

To disallow these things will simply make matters worse later on.

Collectivism

There are two mutually opposed ideas in the world.

Individualism deals with the sovereign unit of the individual.
Collectivism deals with the sovereign unit of the collective.

The root words, obviously:

Individual - a single person, one mind + one body
Collective - a group, more than one.

Individualists deal with every individual as someone who thinks, acts, makes decisions, and oberves the world independantly.

Collectivists deal with the sovereign unit of the collective, and all thoughts, actions, decisions, and observations apply uniformly to all members of a collective.

Individuals pre-exist collectives.

If you have some individuals in a collective, take away the collective and you're left with individuals.

If you have some individuals in a collective, take away the individuals and you've got no more collective.

Individuals are discrete. It's easy to tell when one person and another person are differet.

Collectives are arbitrary. A single person can be a member of multiple collectives simultaneously.

Individuals are real.
Collectives are figments of the imagination.

Individuals have minds.
Collectives are creations of the mind.

Individuals can think and act, individuals are sovereign.
Collectives cannot, only individuals in the collectives can.

Now that I think I've pretty well shown that individualism makes sense and collectivism is stupid, let's look at some examples of collectivism so you can recognize it in the wild.

Towns/Cities/Counties/States/Nations/Countries: Collectives by geography.
Races: Collectives by ethnicity.
Democrats/Republicans/Libertarians/Communists: Collectives by politics.
Christians/Jews/Muslims/Buddhists/Atheists: Collectives by religion.

All of these are arbitrary.

"White" is not a set I belong to, it is a trait which is part of me.
"Atheist" is not a set I belong to, it is a trait which is part of me.
"American" is not a set I belong to, it is a trait which is part of me.

If I say "All these objects on my desk constitute a collective", I'm simply grouping them by my perceptions of a common trait among them: They are all on my desk. I'm not creating any real or object that can be dealt with singularly as if I was referring to an engine or a firearm.

Right-wingers usually bitch about how left-wingers are collectivistic. Right wingers then appeal to nationalism. Nationalism is collectivism. Right-wingers are hypocrites.

Did you catch the collectivism right there? I said "Right wingers are hypocrites". Don't fall into this trap of collectivizing people like that. Learn how to catch when people say things like this. Next time I say something like that, a red flag should go up in your head. Not all right-wingers are hypocrites, but the ones that bitch about collectivism and support nationalism are (not all bitch about collectivism).

Individuals are the only sovereign units which really exist. Jews do not make decisions, nations do not make decisions, blacks do not make decisions, it is individuals who are jewish, reside in an area, or have black skin, who individually make decisions.

Arbitrary collectives are deceptive. Some would have you believe all leftists support affirmative-action, for instance. But this is not how things work. I know some who think it's racist (and they're right). Coincidentally, racism is collectivistic.

It is possible to have an individualistic collective. If the collective is voluntary, then all members of the collective are acting as sovereigns to participate in the collective. If not, if it is involuntary, then it is a collectivistic collective.

When you group people into arbitrary collectives and make generalizations, your generalizations tend to fall apart.

When you drag people into an arbitrary collective with you, such as "society", then you run into the problem of people who don't want to be a part of your society, and your collective fragments into the individuals which really exist and constitute the arbitrary collective.

Collectivism is bogus, and useless.

How is this relevant to anything?

"Society needs to take care of it's less fortunate."

How is society defined? Everyone else living in the area? That's an arbitrary grouping to include me. I don't force you into my imaginary collective, so don't force me into your imaginary collective.

And what's democracy? It's based on the arbitrary geographical collectivization under governments, deferring the sovereign unit from the individual to the collective, directly contrary to reality. Same thing as above.

If you can find some other people that want to go play collectivism with you, have fun. But don't make people play who don't want to. The game is going to fall apart.

Identify all instances of collectivism in your thoughts, and stomp them out. They stand in opposition to reality, reason, and liberty.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Archoexceptionalism

This is the new word I coined for people who believe the government is morally justifiable.

Archo - from greek "archon", meaning ruler, often meaning government.
exceptional - excluding, excepting, not counting
ism - idea or belief.

In plain english, it's the belief that government is magical. It's the belief that while it's wrong for people to murder, enslave, and steal, it's alright and even beneficial if done by government.

Which as I've said before, what's government but a group of people?

If it is wrong for a person to do X, then it is wrong for all people to do X.
If it is wrong for all people to do X, it is wrong for groups of people to do X.
Government is a group of people. It is wrong for government to do X.

This means, no war, no law, no taxes. This is not compatible with government. So statists must be archoexceptionalists in order to rationalize it.

"No you cannot rob Peter, that's wrong. But Peter isn't paying his taxes, now Paul won't be getting a Social Security check."

"No you cannot force Peter to let you look around his house. But the police can get a search warrant and that's okay."

"No you cannot kill Peter, that's murder. But if he resists the IRS agents we're sending to his house we'll kill him."

"No you cannot print money, that would be bad. The Federal Reserve has to print all the money."

"Nobody but the government can build roads."

"Nobody but the government can school the children."

"Nobody but the government can stop the terrorists."

"Nobody but the government can offer police protection."

You can see the clear archoexceptionalism present in these statements.

Another great example is the definition of violence in the public mind.

When a man shoots a cop, even in self-defense, that's considered crime.
When a cop shoots a man, defensively or not, that's considered justice.

How does he do it? Archoexceptionalism. He's not just a man with a badge and a uniform, he's the government. He's excepted from the normal rules.

I'll reiterate, the government is a group of people. Anything one group of people can do, any group of people can do. There is nothing inherent in any one group of people that makes them superior to all others by the very title which they give themselves.

Statism requires archoexceptionalism.

Archoexceptionalism is irrational.

Statism is irrational.

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Daily Bread

There are three subsets of rights. Life, Liberty, and Property.

There are three subsets of crime. Murder, Slavery, and Theft.

Between these we have, Defenselessness, Obedience, and Dependance.

When you are defenseless, obedient, and dependant, you are giving up responsibility, which means you are giving up control over yourself.

Defenselessness is giving someone else control over your life.
Obedience is giving someone else control over your liberty.
Dependance is giving someone else control over your property.

This is what we in the biz call a "slippery slope". When you give someone else control over you, they are not going to give you that control back. Taking it back is difficult because they have an advantage over you that prevents you from getting it back. From that point on, it's the ratchet effect.

Gun ownership is the solution to defenselessness.
Disobedience is the solution to regulation.
Independance is the solution to the welfare trap.

Keep control of your own Life, Liberty, and Property, because it's exactly what collectivists, fascists, and socialists want you not to have. If you do not give up any control, it will be harder for someone to come along later and take control.

"...they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'"