The chick incident

* mircea_popescu had a friend, and a fine fellow he was, who unfortunately died young. but we were friends from childhood.

mircea_popescu my earliest memory of him is, we were in some rural setting, dun recall whose grandparents, and we had chicks (kids get young hatchlings to play with in the time and place, it's a time-honored tradition like getting your toddler one of those dingly noise things to put above the crib or w/e)

mircea_popescu some younger kid that didn't have one wanted to play with his, this guy would have none of it, eventually some adult intervened to make him share

mircea_popescu so he turned the chicks neck and threw the corpse at the whiner.

mircea_popescu school hadn't yet started, so we were prolly 6 or so. but this was a rare concept even at that age.

mircea_popescu ~EVEN~ at that age.

mircea_popescu (and to cap that story - yea the adults expressed outrage ["how could you do that!"] but no, he wasn't punished, because no there was no offense, and the father(s) wouldn't have it, or generally let the women run amok with their nonsense. so hurray for patriarchy or whatever, boo the psychopaths of this world!)

Let's delve into details here, and save the log the spam.ⁱ

A. No offense had been commited. Domestic animals, notwithstanding the fact that they are alive, are nevertheless property just like any other propety. They live at the pleasure of their owners, a life entirely for the express and exclusive purpose of dying at their owner's hand.

You may, of course, disagree with this view. Such disagreement does not make animals any less property, but it does make you less of a person - and if you disagree well enough and long enough you may well eventually - if unwillingly, or simply unawaredly - join the ranks of your aspirational crowd, the very domestic animals in question, to live at your owner's pleasure a life entirely for the express and exclusive purpose of dying at their hand.

B. The child was the owner. It was his chick, which means that it was his chick to kill, on the basis of having been given itⁱⁱ. He didn't acquire, through the giving, a "limited license" to "use the chick in certain approved ways". He acquired full property, to use the chick in any and all ways, then known or in the future to be devised. You may not readily grasp the importance of this difference ; it is however paramount.

C. Outrage was expressed, because there's nothing wrong with persuasion, be it merely attempted or outright successful. There's also no obligation in it, however. How outraged the women are matters if the man asks them, and no further. On its own, outrage lacks any capacity to modulate behaviour, a truth to which your own experienceⁱⁱⁱ no doubt attests.

D. The father(s) wouldn't have permitted it, because yes, the world doesn't work by itself. If the men abdicate their regulatory function of the household, the focus of the place changes from acts to whining, the economy soon collapses from productive to service^iv then in turn hallucination^v, and the country soon enough follows from republic to democracy.

F. The whole thing is an educational exercise, which is why the killing wouldn't oughtn't and needn't be prevented. The entire fucking point of even giving low value items (chicks, three to a dollar or somesuch) to children (three to a woman) is so that they get to experience the effects of their behaviour, which means that yes all possible behaviour is on the table and stays on the table. They're not being told the story of their educational experiences, but get to actually live said, and own them, properly and outright^vi.

All this is, of course, much too expensive for the richest country in the world to ever afford. It wasn't otherwise the case through the entirety of human history - just like the early Manchuko could afford, the late Manchuko couldn't ; just as die Kais'rin couldn't afford, unser Held, Herr and eventual Konig could and so on und so weiter.

1. Even at the cost of context, because yes this discussion relates to a previous discussion about "pulling the pin" and other fail-deadly devices, which in turn relates to a discussion about the state of the beloved republic, and on and on relations to relations up the tree ad infinitum. [↩]
2. And yes, this is exactly how love works, among people. Which is why the only possible definition of marriage is for one - not both - to give himself, or herself, to the other. To give, the self, in exactly the sense, for the purpose and with the view contemplated here.

   You may not be willing to expend resources to enforce the effects of such giving, which is a stance I join you in. That doesn't change much, except for rendering the recording (or, generally speaking, the public announcement) of marriage a pointless exercise. [↩]

3. Such as the shocking lack of politicians dropping dead left and right. [↩]
4. "We'll become filthy rich by doing each other's laundry while serving each other cupcakes." [↩]
5. Apple could buy Russia by selling all its very valuable "intellectual property". Because totally, someone's going to trade the whip in his hand for the words in your mouth. [↩]
6. Rather than, again, "borrow" them, under some sort of convention, license or whatever echolalic insanity. [↩]