HOW DO YOU CONSOLIDATE SOFTWARE WORKPLACE INNOVATIONS?
How do you consolidate a disorganized industry in an age of software? Where cost reduction, creativity, and innovation make liquid and fixed capital all but irrelevant?
—Oversing.—
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-18 02:22:00 UTC
DISBAND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
Limbaugh calls for the end of the republican party.
We must end the republican party forever, as the party of Traitors.
Of course I want to end all parties, because I want to end all elections, and have jurors in the houses chosen by lot.
But ending the party of Traitors is enough for the moment.
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-18 02:00:00 UTC
DEAR SPEAKER RYAN,
I suspect that you don’t realize what you have done. And that, for all intents and purposes, you’re a dead man. An enemy is one thing and a traitor is another. A traitor is hated more than an enemy.
There are men somewhere in american that will not tolerate what you have done.
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-18 01:58:00 UTC
(the thrust of this argument is a conflation of good and preference, and my opponent’s presumption that because of that conflation there are no ‘goods’. This may be a bit hard to parse, but there are objective goods.) [I] think it is that I simply failed to provide sufficient touch stones so that you would draw the conclusions on your own. In other words the argument I make is a necessary one. And that is why it’s an is. That might take a bit but we will get there.
—” I would add my surprise to see you mention at the end that this is all about how things are and not should be.”— Mark
I Think you’re referring to this statement:
—“(g) as far as I know I am explaining what men do (is), not what they should do (should).”—
Which in the context I mean that men do what they must do. what they must do is what they in fact do (“is”). And what they should do is what they must do, and do (“should”). In other words, there is no difference between must, can, is and should. Or better stated, “Man justifies his group evolutionary strategy, whatever it is – he survives.”
—“I see you started out apparently very much talking about good/bad in a thread on political views necessarily based on moral views. So…?”—
So instead I am stating that moral principles necessary for in-group cooperation and are universal necessities (subject to limits), and that despite local variation in the portfolio of norms necessary for the purposes of competition, production, free rider prevention, and rent seeking, that must, can, is, and should are identical propositions. The only question is cooperation between groups with different portfolios that are incompatible. In compatibility is universally decidable by property rights independent of local variation in the portfolio. And this also is what we see men do in reality. So objective morality – rules necessary for rational beneficial voluntary cooperation – is universal.
–“good”— Mark
Now what is the difference between “preference” and “good”? Well I can prefer something I can experience myself. We can say that fulfilling a preference feels good. We can also say that something is good even if it isn’t immediately preferable. So to avoid confusion, lets say that **a preference is an experiential good, and a good is either an non-experiential intertemporal personal benefit, or objectively decidable interpersonal benefit.**
–“starting point”— Mark
So, i start with the first question of “why don’t I kill you and take your stuff”. The first question of ethics. The answer is then one of short and long run costs versus benefits. As long as one’s opponents promise greater cost than reward, we choose cooperation or boycott – if we can choose boycott. From there, to the disproportionate rewards of cooperation assuming predation is costly. Or as biological evolution has informed us: we possess the intuitive ability to both imitate, and beyond imitate to empathize, and beyond empathize to cooperate, and beyond cooperation to anticipate demand for cooperation. We evolved it because cooperation is disproportionately rewarding. But when we cooperate we must prevent free riders from undermining the incentive to cooperate – hence the human intuition to punish free riders (cheaters) even at high personal cost. If a group decides that survival is not ‘good’ (bearing a cost of an intertemporal and directly imperceptible forecast subject to risk) and does not survive then it is not ‘good’ for others to imitate it if they wish to survive. Hence over time, good is defined as what others can imitate in order to survive. So, good is an evolutionary imperative, not a preference. A preference may feel good by analogy but it is not an abstract ‘good’ – a value judgement. ie: subjective preferences and objective goods are different things. And those goods that are in fact ‘good’ are objectively ascertainable over time independent of subjective preference. Cheers
(the thrust of this argument is a conflation of good and preference, and my opponent’s presumption that because of that conflation there are no ‘goods’. This may be a bit hard to parse, but there are objective goods.) [I] think it is that I simply failed to provide sufficient touch stones so that you would draw the conclusions on your own. In other words the argument I make is a necessary one. And that is why it’s an is. That might take a bit but we will get there.
—” I would add my surprise to see you mention at the end that this is all about how things are and not should be.”— Mark
I Think you’re referring to this statement:
—“(g) as far as I know I am explaining what men do (is), not what they should do (should).”—
Which in the context I mean that men do what they must do. what they must do is what they in fact do (“is”). And what they should do is what they must do, and do (“should”). In other words, there is no difference between must, can, is and should. Or better stated, “Man justifies his group evolutionary strategy, whatever it is – he survives.”
—“I see you started out apparently very much talking about good/bad in a thread on political views necessarily based on moral views. So…?”—
So instead I am stating that moral principles necessary for in-group cooperation and are universal necessities (subject to limits), and that despite local variation in the portfolio of norms necessary for the purposes of competition, production, free rider prevention, and rent seeking, that must, can, is, and should are identical propositions. The only question is cooperation between groups with different portfolios that are incompatible. In compatibility is universally decidable by property rights independent of local variation in the portfolio. And this also is what we see men do in reality. So objective morality – rules necessary for rational beneficial voluntary cooperation – is universal.
–“good”— Mark
Now what is the difference between “preference” and “good”? Well I can prefer something I can experience myself. We can say that fulfilling a preference feels good. We can also say that something is good even if it isn’t immediately preferable. So to avoid confusion, lets say that **a preference is an experiential good, and a good is either an non-experiential intertemporal personal benefit, or objectively decidable interpersonal benefit.**
–“starting point”— Mark
So, i start with the first question of “why don’t I kill you and take your stuff”. The first question of ethics. The answer is then one of short and long run costs versus benefits. As long as one’s opponents promise greater cost than reward, we choose cooperation or boycott – if we can choose boycott. From there, to the disproportionate rewards of cooperation assuming predation is costly. Or as biological evolution has informed us: we possess the intuitive ability to both imitate, and beyond imitate to empathize, and beyond empathize to cooperate, and beyond cooperation to anticipate demand for cooperation. We evolved it because cooperation is disproportionately rewarding. But when we cooperate we must prevent free riders from undermining the incentive to cooperate – hence the human intuition to punish free riders (cheaters) even at high personal cost. If a group decides that survival is not ‘good’ (bearing a cost of an intertemporal and directly imperceptible forecast subject to risk) and does not survive then it is not ‘good’ for others to imitate it if they wish to survive. Hence over time, good is defined as what others can imitate in order to survive. So, good is an evolutionary imperative, not a preference. A preference may feel good by analogy but it is not an abstract ‘good’ – a value judgement. ie: subjective preferences and objective goods are different things. And those goods that are in fact ‘good’ are objectively ascertainable over time independent of subjective preference. Cheers
[I]’ll add a little context by way of political economy, and say that the world (a)first organized by household and slaves in the agrarian era by kinship relations, then (b) organized militarily and monarchally for the unskilled for the seasonal production cycle with extended relations, (c) then industrially and socialistically for the semi-skilled medium term production cycle of heavy capital and long term medium term relationships between firms, and is (d) currently organizing entrepreneurially and social democratically for the educated ‘discretionary worker’ for short term production cycles, highly distributed capital, and temporary networks of firms wherever it can do so. But meanwhile (a) labor was never of much value in contrast to organizing production, and is of still declining value (b) marginal difference in firms was created by capital, and is now created by talent and creativity, (c) the duration of organizations (firms) has continued to decline along with the duration of networks of production. (d) Those countries playing catch-up will not sustain their growth because (e) institutions (trust and corruption) prevent them from doing so. So good institutions are less valuable than not having bad institutions. Worse, it appears that (f) good genetic capital is not as important as not having bad genetic capital. As France is illustrating, you can reverse the Flynn effect (benefit from transitioning from many individual rules to few simple general scientific principles of universal applicability). We are engaged in the third world war at present, and it has no sign of improvement. And neither temporary networks of production nor the governments that facilitate may be able to survive the combination of a third world war, a slowing of growth, and a continued expansion of population of the underclasses for whom gainful labor is decreasingly available. Not trying to rain on your parade, but the reverse side of the coin is just as frightening as the obverse is inspiring.
[I]’ll add a little context by way of political economy, and say that the world (a)first organized by household and slaves in the agrarian era by kinship relations, then (b) organized militarily and monarchally for the unskilled for the seasonal production cycle with extended relations, (c) then industrially and socialistically for the semi-skilled medium term production cycle of heavy capital and long term medium term relationships between firms, and is (d) currently organizing entrepreneurially and social democratically for the educated ‘discretionary worker’ for short term production cycles, highly distributed capital, and temporary networks of firms wherever it can do so. But meanwhile (a) labor was never of much value in contrast to organizing production, and is of still declining value (b) marginal difference in firms was created by capital, and is now created by talent and creativity, (c) the duration of organizations (firms) has continued to decline along with the duration of networks of production. (d) Those countries playing catch-up will not sustain their growth because (e) institutions (trust and corruption) prevent them from doing so. So good institutions are less valuable than not having bad institutions. Worse, it appears that (f) good genetic capital is not as important as not having bad genetic capital. As France is illustrating, you can reverse the Flynn effect (benefit from transitioning from many individual rules to few simple general scientific principles of universal applicability). We are engaged in the third world war at present, and it has no sign of improvement. And neither temporary networks of production nor the governments that facilitate may be able to survive the combination of a third world war, a slowing of growth, and a continued expansion of population of the underclasses for whom gainful labor is decreasingly available. Not trying to rain on your parade, but the reverse side of the coin is just as frightening as the obverse is inspiring.
[T]he Truth was enough to create the west, and it is enough to restore the west. But we must suppress the liars as we have murder, violence, theft, and fraud. That is because like air, land, and sea, information is a precious commons that cannot tolerate pollution if truth is to survive. Punish the wicked. And if requiring fails, what follows is bloody constraint.
[T]he Truth was enough to create the west, and it is enough to restore the west. But we must suppress the liars as we have murder, violence, theft, and fraud. That is because like air, land, and sea, information is a precious commons that cannot tolerate pollution if truth is to survive. Punish the wicked. And if requiring fails, what follows is bloody constraint.
[P]arasitism is just as natural as cooperation. And so the function of the law is to discover new forms of parasitism so that the polity can insure one another against the new forms of parasitism. So it is not simply natural to cooperate, it is natural to cooperate as much as incentives allow, and to act parasitically as much as incentives allow. And in almost all cases production is more burdensome than parasitism. So, we create institutions to raise the cost of parasitism such that all incentives favor cooperation. We force everyone to participate in the market in order to survive. And if we don’t grasp this we make the same mistake as the Enlightenment peoples, and in particular the classical liberal libertarians, and the cosmopolitan libertines: that man is good and oppressed, rather than man follows incentives and he needs to be prohibited from parasitism so that his only choice is production. Not just because his participation in production increases productivity, but because his abstinence from parasitism decreases transaction costs, risk, and increases its corollary, trust. In this way, prosperity is created not so much by the emphasis on the good, but on the prohibition of the bad, leaving only good actions available to man. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine