[A] lot of people hate white people. I have been discriminated against by Jews, Asians and Blacks in particular. But I have a lot of options within my tribe. So it’s an outlier condition. But it begs the question: Why don’t others have so many options within their tribes? Why isn’t opportunity in white organizations an outlier?
Or as Yali ((Guns Germs and Steel)) asked: why do white people have cargo?
Note: The answer is “Trust”.
[A] lot of people hate white people. I have been discriminated against by Jews, Asians and Blacks in particular. But I have a lot of options within my tribe. So it’s an outlier condition. But it begs the question: Why don’t others have so many options within their tribes? Why isn’t opportunity in white organizations an outlier?
Or as Yali ((Guns Germs and Steel)) asked: why do white people have cargo?
Note: The answer is “Trust”.
[P]eter Boettke posted an article by Paul Krugman yesterday which referred to the divisions in economics – with derision.
And it’s been bothering me all night:
Progressives, libertarians, and conservatives demonstrate an inter-temporal division of reproductive labor in their moral biases and cognitive biases.
So why wouldn’t economists follow the same moral, inter-temporal division of labor?
Well, they do. All humans do.
Austrians represent the conservative long term: accumulation and competitiveness, and new Keynesian progressives the short term: consumption and reproduction.
The question is whether consumption/dysgenia or accumulation/eugenia is preferable.
This is the central proposition. And we avoid answering it just as much as our ancestors avoided the question of the existence of gods.
Until we answer that question all economic debate is just obscurant deception as a means of avoiding the central question of economics: what is it that we are solving for?
I can answer that question because western history answered it for us.
[P]eter Boettke posted an article by Paul Krugman yesterday which referred to the divisions in economics – with derision.
And it’s been bothering me all night:
Progressives, libertarians, and conservatives demonstrate an inter-temporal division of reproductive labor in their moral biases and cognitive biases.
So why wouldn’t economists follow the same moral, inter-temporal division of labor?
Well, they do. All humans do.
Austrians represent the conservative long term: accumulation and competitiveness, and new Keynesian progressives the short term: consumption and reproduction.
The question is whether consumption/dysgenia or accumulation/eugenia is preferable.
This is the central proposition. And we avoid answering it just as much as our ancestors avoided the question of the existence of gods.
Until we answer that question all economic debate is just obscurant deception as a means of avoiding the central question of economics: what is it that we are solving for?
I can answer that question because western history answered it for us.
[T]he only moral society is one in which property, morality and law are synonyms.
(i) PROPERTY : that which we demonstrate.
(ii) MORALITY: that which we require.
(iii) LAW: that which we promise.
[T]he only moral society is one in which property, morality and law are synonyms.
(i) PROPERTY : that which we demonstrate.
(ii) MORALITY: that which we require.
(iii) LAW: that which we promise.
[W]e Don’t Need To Further Research Property – it’s Settled Science.
1) Property that we consider ours, is that which we bear costs to obtain or bear costs if we lose.
2) Property that is necessary within a cooperative kinship group is determined by that which is necessary to prevent free-riding.
3) Property that we demonstrate to others that we consider ours, is determined by what one is willing to defend.
4) Property rights demonstrated by others are limited to the property that others are willing to defend on our behalf.
The question then, is not what is property, but how willing are we to defend the property that we demonstrate.
We don’t need to invent property – or a limit to it.
We need to adjudicate disputes over what we demonstrate to be property ourselves, among our cooperatives and kin, from those who we must defend it from, and those who we ask to help us in that defense.
Every other argument is merely an attempt to gain a discount through verbal deception.
(Punish The Wicked)
[W]e Don’t Need To Further Research Property – it’s Settled Science.
1) Property that we consider ours, is that which we bear costs to obtain or bear costs if we lose.
2) Property that is necessary within a cooperative kinship group is determined by that which is necessary to prevent free-riding.
3) Property that we demonstrate to others that we consider ours, is determined by what one is willing to defend.
4) Property rights demonstrated by others are limited to the property that others are willing to defend on our behalf.
The question then, is not what is property, but how willing are we to defend the property that we demonstrate.
We don’t need to invent property – or a limit to it.
We need to adjudicate disputes over what we demonstrate to be property ourselves, among our cooperatives and kin, from those who we must defend it from, and those who we ask to help us in that defense.
Every other argument is merely an attempt to gain a discount through verbal deception.
(Punish The Wicked)
CHEAPER FOR THE STRONG TO GIVE PEOPLE PROPERTY RIGHTS
[P]roperty exists prior to codification in a constitution. So does promise, prior to the institution of contract. A constitution is merely an agreement for reciprocal insurance of the terms of property and contract.
It so happens that allocation of property rights determines the incentives possible, and the incentives determine the degree of market participation – how many hands make the work light – and therefore the cost of providing individuals with incentives.
It’s just cheaper for the strong to give everyone property rights – so long as none of the weak band together to extract from the strong under platonic justification via those self-same rules.
This is the same reason that Slavery is illogical as well as immoral: assuming the prior slaves respect property rights and do not form a government of extraction, then it is merely cheaper and easier to have one’s slaves as vendors and customers.
CHEAPER FOR THE STRONG TO GIVE PEOPLE PROPERTY RIGHTS
[P]roperty exists prior to codification in a constitution. So does promise, prior to the institution of contract. A constitution is merely an agreement for reciprocal insurance of the terms of property and contract.
It so happens that allocation of property rights determines the incentives possible, and the incentives determine the degree of market participation – how many hands make the work light – and therefore the cost of providing individuals with incentives.
It’s just cheaper for the strong to give everyone property rights – so long as none of the weak band together to extract from the strong under platonic justification via those self-same rules.
This is the same reason that Slavery is illogical as well as immoral: assuming the prior slaves respect property rights and do not form a government of extraction, then it is merely cheaper and easier to have one’s slaves as vendors and customers.