Meek, 2

This could very well explain the Flynn effect or secular rise in IQ scores, in particular, that even blacks have gotten smarter on average over the last several generations, despite the welfare state which encourages the opposite dysgenic process.

The Flynn effect has been fast, but it could be argued that the market selects the winning people almost if not quite as fast as people select the winning consumer goods.

In the free market, the "fittest" individuals are by their nature the most meek.

The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth

When Jesus said this, he meant it literally. He did not mean that the meek shall find spiritual salvation or inherit heaven. These were addressed in the other beatitudes.

Why would the actual earth on which we live be eventually populated by the meek? The argument consists in two points. First, there is in general such a thing as progress. There are indeed numerous dead ends into which individuals and nations joyously directed themselves during the course of human history. But they lead nowhere. The sinners have to, on their own will and intellect and power, renounce sin, lest they never find happiness.

Here's a latest headline: "Islamic State Has Full Control of Syria's Palmyra." Here's the thing, though: there is nothing there but ancient ruins. ISIS is the undisputed ruler of a desert wasteland. And that is all this place will remain, until ISIS meeks up.

Second, the direction of social progress and justice points toward laissez-faire capitalism. But there is a eugenic tendency within the free market, as I have already pointed out, that causes those people who are more productive and better at satisfying consumer desires, i.e., at making other people happier, to "afford" more children than their less capable fellows. As a result, superior workers and entrepreneurs should be expected to leave more children who will, on average, inherit their benign powers.

Such productive men and women will be especially peaceful and more intelligent, including emotionally, as being a successful entrepreneur entails reading one's customers, in their inborn traits and will leave more children than the more aggressive and to that extent less useful to society persons. This, however, only given the laissez-faire ideology.

Therefore, if we want to fulfill Jesus' prophesy, then we'd better adopt unfettered capitalism ASAP.

Putinism, 2

I understand Stalinism, say. There was an ideology there, communism. The ideology required that there be one great party leading the "masses" to the glorious communist future, and that this party be led by one great leader who infallibly pushes history toward ever greater heights.

These ultimate command and control are essential for the fulfillment of this grand overarching purpose and drive of the human species.

As a result, the speed at which this wonderful goal was being achieved could not reasonably be slowed down. But it would be slowed down if anyone -- clearly a traitor or enemy of the people -- disagreed with the great leader and tried to criticize him or for that matter the goal of communism. For the leader was appointed by material productive forces or whatever to execute these forces' grand design. No puny dissident, it was understood, shall stand in the way of history aka Stalin's will. Hence, the persecution of "heretics," the gulags, the suppression of social sciences, and so forth.

In other words, there was a logic to it, however twisted.

In Putinism, I see no trace of such logic. There is no socialist ideology among the Russians anymore. Nor does Putin himself possess particular charisma. He is not even handsome or imposing physically. He exhibits no great intellectual virtues. He is no less immoral than a typical politician. In short, he's just a crude if cunning guy who clawed his way into power. Yet the Russians overwhelmingly support him.

I surmise therefore, as I did in a previous post, that it's part of the Russian national character to enjoy sucking dick even of their petty tyrants.

Child Custody Idea

What if judges deciding such matters were instructed that the older the male children are in a dispute, the more reason there is to grant custody of them to the father?

What the Diverse Really Want

Kill all white men, according to one such, Bahar Mustafa.

As an economist, however, I feel it is my duty to point out that it would not be in the self-interest of the "queer feminists," whatever ideology or "identity" that signifies, to kill all white men, because of... you know, the civilization that would, uh... collapse.

Hat tip: Lew Rockwell blog.

How Cool Is Lew Rockwell?

See for yourself in his re-opened Political Theatre blog.

“Responsible” Freedom

If you're Ok with individual freedoms, but only as long as they are not "abused," then you are in fact a statist extraordinaire.

The Utility of Soldiers

Their training can make them useful as highly skilled mercenary security guards to entrepreneurs working in dangerous or unstable areas of the world.

Putinism

Is Putin like Buddha, who says "follow my teachings," or like Jesus, who says "follow me"?

Or does he just have a big dick that Russians like to suck?

Discrimination

Natural law forbids the government's punishing businessmen for refusing to serve the "wrong" customers, i.e., people belonging to any supposed Victim Group.

However, again, the purpose of installing Victim Groups is not just mindlessly to crush people, to ride roughshod over individual preferences and property rights, though this is always useful to statists, but to erase the distinctions that actually need to be observed and to make people stupid enough no longer to be able to observe them.

Gays, 3

The whole thing about gay marriage is the homosexuals trying to become an Official Victim Group, under no circumstances to be "discriminated" against.

It's probably even worse than this. I'd expect individual homosexuals to balk at the idea of privileging themselves in the eyes of the law in this way. The homosexuals understand quite well that they are perverts and that their personalities are vicious. Far be it from them to preach the virtues of their disgusting habits!

The people leading this attack are themselves most certainly not gay but are as if a demonic horde intent upon erasing all distinctions between things, including between heterosexual and gay relations. They seek to grind the world into prime matter. What they are doing is unjust, yet they are aware of and will this injustice.

Not only are they eager to suppress people's ability to discriminate between good and evil through propaganda and government schooling, but they also aspire to sic the government's police onto those who still do (most reasonably, by the way) discriminate.

Again, individual gays are not to blame. There is a big difference between the garden-variety situation of Smith's sinning and the monstrously evil situation of Jones' teaching other people that what Smith is doing is perfectly Ok.

Private Law

If positive law should be private, what does the public legislature do?

Suppose Smith lives next to Jones, and Smith does not like Jones' face. Smith has no right to demand that Jones submit to a plastic surgery.

If, however, Jones has a bonfire on his lawn every night, and the smoke chokes Smith, then this is a kind of trespassing, and Smith may have a case if he sues Jones.

It's true that this case can be resolved privately, by Smith paying Jones not to have bonfires, or alternatively by Jones paying Smith to put up with the smoke, but which way the money shall go (i.e., initial property rights) must be determined by law prior to any lawsuit.

A territorial externality like this is a matter of concern for any city council.

Suppose now that Jones joins a community of beautiful people that is run as follows. For each member Smith, Jones and all others vote on how beautiful that Smith is, and the outcome of the vote is poor, then Smith must undergo a plastic surgery. Smith is compensated for this inconvenience with his own power to vote on other people's beauty and is part of the community voluntarily. Then Jones does obtain a claim on Smith's face and can sue him to behave in accordance with the very law that Smith freely bound himself with.

Gays, 2

I suggest that we meet the gays who claim they were born this way, and conservatives who argue it's a lifestyle choice, somewhat half-way by saying that same-sex attraction, once contracted by whatever means, is an ingrained habit, in particular, a filthy and repulsive one, to be strenuously resisted; and sodomy is a no less filthy and repulsive act, like fucking a pig.

Again, even fucking (your own) pigs would be legal in a good libertarian society; at the same time, everyone will have the liberty to refuse 1) to invite pig-fuckers to high society dinners or 2) to preside over or bake cakes for man-pig marriages.

Quadriformities, 2

The world is saturated with them; most people, however, look but do not see.

The Purpose of the Legislature

The purpose of a local law-making body, such as city council, is twofold: (1) deal with externalities (trash disposal, animal control, fire safety), and (2) set tax rates. That's it.

The council cannot override natural law, nor drown the people in a morass of bureaucratic rules and regulations.

Thus, true positive law is entirely private, that is, applies only to those who want to bind themselves by some law that goes beyond natural, and is valid for such people on any territory, even if they venture outside their city.

Branches of Government and Types of Law

Natural law is discovered by judges;

Positive law is enacted by the legislature;

Law governing the use of government properties, such as city streets, is created by the executive branch.

Some Quadriformities

2nd-level nature:

Goodness: the will, Holy Spirit, objective real
Truth: the intellect, Father, objective ideal
Beauty: power, Son, subjective real
Unity: the union of the above, oneness of the Trinity, subjective ideal

Goodness of:

God's 3rd level: objective real
Natures of all other things, including the 2nd-level God: objective ideal
Moral good: subjective real
Physical good (pleasure): subjective ideal

Aristotelian causes

Material: Guardian
Final: Idealist
Efficient: Rational
Formal: Artisan

Time periods:

Past: Guardian
Future: Idealist
Timelessness: Rational
Present: Artisan

Time relations:

Before: physical cause
After: teleological cause
During: Aristotelian 4 causes
Eternally co-present: divine cause

Understanding:

A posteriori analytic: Guardian
A priori synthetic: Idealist
A posteriori inductive: Rational
A priori deductive: Artisan

The permutations of:

Exists / does not exist;
Has essence / does not have essence

Reference / no reference;
Meaning / no meaning.

Mental powers:

Recollection: past
Anticipation: future
Imagination: timeless
Perception: present

Temperaments:

Guardian (yin) + Idealist (yang) = fruit of the virtue trinity, self-knowledge
Rational (yin) + Artisan (yang): = fruit of the happiness trinity, enjoyment

The Long March Through the Institutions

The young people are now convinced that racism, whatever that means, is the worst sin, and non-discrimination is the greatest virtue.

But discrimination is just another word for "taste." The public schools have destroyed all discernment in the next generation who now think that beauty is the same as ugliness, truth as falsehood, and good as evil.

I once examined my cousin's, a fine product of government indoctrination, soul and realized that it smelled like an ashtray. That's what the non-discrimination ideology leads to in all its victims.

On Gay Marriage

Ian Millhiser brings up Justice Ginsburg's argument in favor of gay marriage:

[Same-sex couples] wouldn't be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn't possible.

Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship.

Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him.

There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldn't -- wouldn't fit into what marriage was once.

Ian goes on: the law "presumed that the wife was both financially and sexually subservient to the husband. ... But marriage is no longer bound to antiquated gender roles. And when those gender roles are removed, the case for marriage discrimination breaks down."

Now first of all, let's admit that while marriage is a Catholic sacrament, and may save one's soul, and many other wonderful things, the civil or common law is not concerned with such subtle matters of divine grace but with more mundane issues of human nature, that is, of man as he (and she) is in his own natural state. As a result, how marriage is to be conceived should be discussed by considering solely natural law.

And regarding that, marriage exists in law to order human reproduction. There are two aspects of it: unitive or the relations between the husband and wife; and procreative or the relations between the parents and children.

The unitive aspect of civil marriage is to discourage faithless love, thereby promiscuity, thereby heartbreak. Both men and women benefit tremendously from the stability, sexual, emotional, intellectual, that marriage brings to their lives and frees them to pursue happiness rightly understood, and the law is concerned to foster such stability.

I mean, who can doubt that until a man marries a woman, he is essentially desperate and capable of all manner of self- and other-destructive things?

For male homosexuals, there is no love, even faithless kind: it's all about lust: the very idea that two gays can fall in love with each other defies reason. Lesbianism may be different; but lesbianism seems so preposterous that it only makes sense in pornography. So, the unitive function of marriage is not served by "equality."

The procreative aspect of civil marriage is to assure legitimacy, that children are biologically one's own, and provide a home for those children that features both unconditional nurturing from the mother and conditional guidance from the father.

But gays cannot have children, at least at the current level of biotechnology. Nor are they capable of providing a suitable home for adopted children; therefore, even with adoption properly privatized, no adoption agency can be permitted to send its kids to homosexuals.

It is these concerns, and not whether the wife should or should not be "financially and sexually" subservient to the husband that suggest that society ought not to recognize gay marriage as an institution as special as normal marriage.

Homosexuality: A Theory

Homosexuality may be a natural variation that prevents men who are too effeminate and women who are too masculine from reproducing which would otherwise harm the species.

It can arise, for males, as follows: women who are especially feminine and therefore successful at bearing many children may end up "feminizing" some of their sons while they are still in the womb. Whether or not there is a "gay gene," a gay boy is a biological victim of his own mother's feminine charms and reproductional achievements. He is an unfortunate price such a woman pays for all her other, normal children.