Leaderboard

An interesting article. There were some points I mean to argue, I'll copy and paste them in bubbles. An interesting claim, but I don't know how true it is. Personally, I want to rule as well as be ruled well. I want to rule myself and the affects of my actions, and delegate matters I am unfamiliar or ignorant of to experts. Therefore, I wish to both rule and be ruled. My question is always how to single out the right people for the right jobs. I think the answer is "the Free Market". My biggest problem with the article is a lack of definition for authority. Depending on what is meant is what is really being said. If authority is a sensation or illusion given to he perceived to be the judge, jury, and executioner then mobs have authority. If authority is someone with known/demonstrated expertise in a given area, then a mob, unless comprised of experts about a specific subject, cannot have authority. However authority does not guarantee truth. A hundred scientists can say the Earth is flat and be proven true in everything else they've claimed/argued/proven, and still be wrong here. Therefore, authority is useful for delegating responsibilities to individuals with proven records in what they do because no man can be a true 100% fountain of expertise polymath. Although I am a Christian, I won't accept this as proof if the definition of "authority" is expertise, unless by God what is meant is genes and the result and series of happenings since God's creation of the universe. Analogies aren't arguments. They can make an argument more digestible but the only argument I can find for monarchy here is "because it is natural". And I agree, one man or woman being in charge based on expertise is natural to civilization. So too, unfortunately, is beta resentment. As a moral example, I agree. A leader ought exemplify his own spoken and unspoken beliefs and act as a champion to others. What is the commons? The singularly talented and unspectacular? Why? Why ought the King protect the "commons"? What are the commons in danger from and what are they owed? Why does the King owe him? How can the King cure their dangers? I agree here that an Imperial family and a homogeneous culture (ideally based on a mix of Christendom, UPB, and NAP) can bridge the gaps made by race and ethnicity, to some extent, namely the extent to which ethnic and racial groups are capable of being assimilated with one another. A good argument as compared to a senate which would fuel the pre-existing fires of racial and ethnic and cultural differences. I don't know if the Enlightenment is responsible for that since, from what I understand, the principle of the Enlightenment is that merit and skill are to be valued far and above background and pedigree. Which I'd generally agree with when I can refer to someone's past and merits as a means of judging their quality. This does not necessarily hurt nobility unless the nobility is an institution promoting and maintaining the unskilled by artificially elevating them... Which was sometimes the case. I'd argue "true nobility" can only be created, sustained, and fairly taken away by the Free Market. Ehh... superior individuals ought to be respected and allowed to handle the matters in which they're skilled. However unless the culture is homogeneous and the society's branches mutually appreciative, I can't say I agree with this notion. However I do think the Free Market plus Christianity = Productivity and respect for others as individuals. How does a church grant authority based on the reasoning that authority is expertise? Moral authority? Possibly. However the Church cannot have a monopoly on morality as the Church is comprised of fallible mortals, therefore other groups (like FDR and the alternative media for example) ought compete as granters of moral authority. Words to note in these troubled times of ours'. Fatherhood definitely. Monarchy maybe. Monarchy can only work in the long term if only the most able and best judges of character are in power. Nobility could potentially, as experts in whatever various things they do, alongside the moral authority granted by the Church, the media, celebrities, etc. (note I am not suggesting all celebrities and media should be moral authority, however they do hold moral authority over some people, and I think if "alternative media" or "alternative celebrities" weren't persecuted by the establishment then a true competition among celebrities could be had for who holds true moral authority and therefore who actually matters in terms of judgement), could most certainly work. And the best way to create that is with an AnCap Free Market society since the most able always before the most powerful and productive in a state of freedom.

Whatever reputable sources I can, online, wherever, including of course academic journals. Though less reputable sources can sometimes provide leads to follow up on. And if some ambiguity bugs me in particular that I want to clear up, I even go straight to the source if I have to. The main point, though, is that for me it's about establishing truth, and so it's something that I'm invested in... this is not just a job or a hobby.

yup, crystal-gazing, tarot cards, astrology, it all works for me!

The twins studies are controversial, and far from settled: https://www.madinamerica.com/2014/12/studies-reared-apart-separated-twins-facts-fallacies/

From the link I posted: "•Twins share a common pre-natal (intrauterine) environment." This is non-trivial, because a lot of stuff is going on in the intrauterine environment. Handedness (right or left) is shown to differ even with identical twins, based on their shifting proximities within the womb. There are sounds, the mother's experiences and whether or not she is stressed out, and so on (references available). A proper study will have to somehow control for the intrauterine environment. Handedness (left/right) in identical twins is particularly interesting, given their shifting proximities and likely dominance issues that might play out in confined spaces. From http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/health/051600hth-genetics-lefthanded.html: In a striking 18 percent of identical twins, products of the same egg with exactly the same genetic makeup, one twin is right-handed and the other left-handed. There also seems to be a higher proportion of fraternal twins with different handedness than is the case with other siblings. Stay skeptical. They'll have to find a way of controlling for the intra-uterine available, and I don't see that happening anytime soon, without artificial wombs.

What if the child is born brain dead? Is it a human? Personally I don't think so. By your line of reasoning it would be. I define a human as that which has the main function of a human, our ability to reason. So like I said above, a robot or alien, providing it could reason, should have every right as those afforded to humans. But by your definition, an alien is not human, and therefore, even though they may be able to reason, they are not afforded the considerations of a human. I don't think this is right, I think they should be. So yes its hypothetical but by pushing the limits to each theory, one I think properly covers the hypothetical situation while the other is completely wrong.