(different worlds)
Talking to my nephew.
HIM: “I’d love to see that country” (Ukraine)
ME: “We have this whole revolution thing going on right now so it’s probably not a good idea. Shooting people with AK’s in the damned street… While they’re trying to hide… Nuts…
HIM: “Nothing I wouldn’t be used to” *(four combat tours)*
eek…. I like being afraid of gunfire. I’m not sure I want to be used to it. š
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-25 13:15:00 UTC
(public diary)
If you’ve been following me for at least a year or so you probably can see where this work is all headed now.
It was much harder for me to figure out how to talk about these things in simple terms than it was to solve the initial problem. I understood, very early, that the missing ethical property of complex cooperation was calculability. I understood what was wrong with praxeology, and ethics. I understood how to connect biological and evolutionary necessity with calculability and calculation. I understood reproduction but not the importance of the family as an organizational structure.
But to tie it all together in language that was at least somewhat accessible was extremely difficult. Because unfortunately, I don’t really think in words. It’s somewhere between logic and programming. So I have to write, write, write, over and over again, until I get it right. And by right I mean “compact” and therefore accessible to others.
I wish I could sleep more often this well, because I’m so productive when I do. My productivity is almost entirely dependent on the volume of sleep I get. Today is a productive day.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-25 09:53:00 UTC
MISES WAS JUST WRONG : APRIORI VS FALSIFICATION
Mises was a victim of the Jewish enlightenment (just as Hayek suggested) and could not escape pseudoscientific text and verbalism endemic to Jewish culture. He failed to give us the logic he ‘sensed’ that describes human action by attempting to suggest that, like jewish fanaticism, it was possible to conduct deduction from first principles. It is not.
It is however possible for all humans to TEST statements reduced to some analogy to experience by way of logics or instrumentation. This “universal-ness”: the marginal indifference in human incentives – is the source of logic: reduction to perception.
So we can either reform praxeology by correcting it through inversion from a form of deduction to an empirical method of testing the rationality of incentives, or we can discard praxeology as a failed attempt at creating logic of cooperation that underlies all economic activity.
My preference is to give Mises credit by REFORMING praxeology, which would have the benefit of undermining the remaining body of pseudoscientific libertarian dogma that, because it is actually immoral in content, HINDERS the progress of liberty by providing the same false hope that ALL scriptural pseudo rational, pseudoscientific methods of inquiry do. We must remember that ratio-scientific investigation, meritocratic evolution norms, meritocratic evolution of common laws, and meritocratic circulation of elites, are slow and expensive methods of change. And that pseudoscience and pseudo-rational arguments are simply attempts to obtain some end at a discount on the expenditure of effort necessary to achieve that end empirically (by empirically, I mean “demonstrably”).
I would also prefer to discredit all of Rothbard’s pseudoscientific ghetto pseudo scientific while preserving his historical contributions to the history of fiat money and credit. His critique of the State, as that of Mises’ is a significant contribution to the criticism of political thought. However neither Mises nor Rothbard contributed what did Hoppe: a solution to the problem of formal institutions. The three men, Mises, rothbard and Hoppe, did manage to give us our first attempt at the formal logic of cooperation. Albeit, like all Continentals they failed to provide it in anglo-empirical and therefore scientific terms.
So my preference is to reform libertarianism and give credit to their contributions – contributions I have obviously made use of.
And that is my objective.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-25 09:44:00 UTC
RATIONALISM AND THE APRIOR AS FAILURES IN CONTRAST TO NATURAL SCIENCE – ALWAYS AND FOREVER WILL BE
–“Newton’s work stands as the great exemplar of the accomplishments of natural science for the eighteenth century, the most salient contrast between Newton’s work and that of the great rationalist systems lies in their methods.”
“Whereas the great rationalist philosophers of the seventeenth century conceive of scientific knowledge of nature as consisting in a system in which statements expressing the observable phenomena of nature are deduced from first principles, known a priori, Newton’s method begins with the observed phenomena of nature and reduces its multiplicity to unity by induction, that is, by finding mathematical laws or principles from which the observed phenomena can be derived or explained.”
**”The contrast between the great success of Newton’s ābottom-upā procedure and the seemingly endless and fruitless conflicts among philosophers regarding the meaning and validity of first principles of reason naturally favors the rise of the Newtonian (or Baconian) method of acquiring knowledge of nature in the eighteenth century.”**–
From SEP : By Mark Alznauer, Margaret Atherton, Kyla Ebels-Duggan, Alan Nelson, Julius Sensat and Rachel Zuckert provided helpful comments on an earlier draft, which lead to substantial revisions.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-25 09:28:00 UTC
THE NATURAL STATE OF MAN
(callout) (gem)
–“The natural state of man is to adapt his family (reproductive organization), and his rules of cooperation (property rights, norms, rituals and myths) to the continuous changes in the structure of production made possible by his technical advancements.”–
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-25 09:04:00 UTC
AN ARISTOCRATIC LIBERTARIAN CALL TO ARMS
Rothbard is using the urban ghetto as a model (Jewish religious) and Locke the genetically homogenous island as a model (English and Anglo-Empirical). A third model consists of tribes constantly competing for land and thus constantly at war over resources -the spears you mention: (German and Continental) model.
A fourth model is told to us by science: a consanguineous inbred band without distinction by the roles that we must evolve along with our means of production, and the rules necessary to facilitate that production.
None of these models addresses mans nature. All of them together, do tell us something:
The natural state of man is to adapt his family (reproductive organization), his rules of cooperation (property rights, norms, rituals and myths) to the continuous changes in the structure of production made possible by his technical advancements.
There exists no natural state of man, only natural properties of man. Arguments in favor of a state of man are bound to fail because they are based upon false assumptions.
The problem for any cooperative group remains constant: creating incentives both in favor of production and against free riding and parasitism. Since expansion of production in a division of knowledge and labor increases the opportunity for free riding and parasitism because of increasing anonymity of the participants the structure of production.
Rothbard, like Cantor, Freud and Marx, is but the author another pseudoscience and our failure to grasp it as such a measure of our seducability by cheap introspective empty verbalisms rather than expensive scientific investigations.
And I am going to drag libertarian philosophy out of the empty verbalism of ghetto pseudoscience and into the ratio scientific era – kicking and screaming if necessary. But then, given the enormous investments pseudoscientists have made in their pseudoscience I suspect that they will cling to their empty verbal pseudoscience as desperately as fortune tellers, astrologers, psychologists, marxists, and mathematical platonists.
–Leave no pseudoscientist standing. Liberty is too precious to trust to empty verbalism–
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-25 08:22:00 UTC
ALL SOCIETIES REQUIRE A DOMINANT MINORITY
Who is ours?
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-25 06:12:00 UTC
YES. BUT WHAT IF OUR CONCEPT OF ‘CHURCH’ CHANGES?
–“We have seen that a universal church is apt to come to birth during a Time of Troubles following the breakdown of a civilization and to unfold itself within the political framework of the ensuing universal state. We have seen also… that the principal beneficiaries of the institutions maintained by universal states have been universal churches; and it is therefore not surprising that the champions of a universal state, whose fortunes are on the wane, should dislike the spectacle of a universal church growing within its bosom. The church is therefore likely to be regarded… as a social cancer responsible for the decline in the state.”– A J Toynbee
Property
Militia
Chivalry
Common Law
Banking and Finance
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-25 05:56:00 UTC
CONSERVATIVES SUCCEED WHERE LIBERTARIANS ALWAYS FAIL.
–“for the foreseeable future, the Deep State must restrain its appetite for taxpayer dollars. Limited deals may soften sequestration, but agency requests will not likely be fully funded anytime soon. Even Wall Streetās rentier operations have been affected: After helping finance the tea party to advance its own plutocratic ambitions, Americaās Big Money is now regretting the Frankensteinās monster it has created. Like children playing with dynamite, the tea party and its compulsion to drive the nation into credit default has alarmed the grown-ups commanding the heights of capital; the latter are now telling the politicians they thought they had hired to knock it off.”–
Well. Bill Moyers might not realize that some of us, people like me, started working the strategy of driving the state into credit default in 1980. It just took a while.
That said, conservatives understand power. That all human organization requires power – decision makers. Deciders. Whether monopoly or distributed.
For liberty to persist, those who desire it must use DISTRIBUTED POWER. We must CONSTANTLY pay the price of liberty. We cannot obtain it at a discount.
Power is expensive. Liberty is difficult to price because it is so expensive.
You can’t get liberty at a discount by claiming ‘it’s a right’.
That kind of nonsense is for children.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-25 00:28:00 UTC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RmDqqZZceX0THE STATE IN ACTION – MURDER WHOLESALE
In case the media (or the Russian government) suggest that the government troops were defending themselves, watch them murder men from a distance who are pinned down on the ground. Watch real men fighting for their liberty, not for a share of someone else’s money.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-25 00:10:00 UTC