ISN”T IT JUST OBVIOUS THAT DENYING ARMED GUARDS IN OUR SCHOOLS
Is both a cheaper and more effective solution to violence than any other?
And that the movement against it is entirely emotional, not rational.
And that this irrationality is driven by a desire to maintain the feminine illusion of power in the school system by denying the existence of male power?
Isn’t this just another absurd side effect of feminism?
Source date (UTC): 2013-01-19 13:29:00 UTC
INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN SOCIAL ORDER WE CALL WESTERN CIVILIZATION (rough sketch)
PROBLEM
Faced with numerical inferiority, but capable of producing sufficient calories, how does a group successfully compete? (Whether for advancement in consumption or preservation of consumption)
ANSWER
Excellence, Meritocracy. Coordination, Adaptation, Speed, Technology, Concentration Of Resources. .
STRATEGY
I. Create a competitive organization capable of continuous improvement and which will remain competitive over the long term.
II. Provide a means of enfranchisement by demonstrated ability to cooperate with, and to compete on behalf of, the organization.
III. Prevent the concentration of the power to alter the egalitarian order for personal gain.
IV. Prevent the concentration of the power to define property rights and allocate property as a means of altering the egalitarian strategy.
Note: Human biological predisposition to constrain alphas. And this predisposition varies between genders, racial groups and classes.
Build and encourage alphas. Constrain alphas through enfranchisement and egalitarian prohibition of power.
TACTICS
1) Provide a means for discouraging conflict and encouraging cooperation by providing a means for the resolution of conflict.
Note: Independent judges under the common law.
2) Define property and a portfolio of property rights and obligations as a means of facilitating cooperation and preventing conflict.
Note: A constitution, oral or written, that enumerates rights, obligations and processes. And which applies equally to all enfranchised.
3) Provide a means of imposing a monopoly on the definition of those property rights, thereby creating a market.
Note: a competition between systems of property rights must result in the theft of either personal property, common physical property, common formal institutional property, or that form of common informal property called norms.
4) Provide a means of concentrating capital for the production of commons for the purpose of improving the competitiveness of the market.
Note: Governance is the concentration of capital in support of expanding the market, not lawmaking.
5) Provide a means for preventing the privatization of the commons either directly or indirectly.
Note: Prevent cheating, indirect involuntary transfer. Use Contractualism instead of legalism. Use contracts not laws.
6) Provide for a means of distributing dividends to shareholders as a means of preventing involuntary transfer of shareholder value.
Note: prevent cheating and encourage both membership and conformity by limiting dividends to the enfranchised only.
Note: Property rights are earned by respecting them.
=========
Needs a lot of work. Good first sketch.
One very interesting insight.
Source date (UTC): 2013-01-18 19:20:00 UTC
THE ILLUSION OF PRODUCTION
One psychological trick of moral deception that left leaning economists rely upon is the implication that the term “production” is merely a process of execution.
This process of execution is contrasted with the process of “research and development”, with the implication that there is no risk to production and high risk in research and development.
Furthermore, that the economy consist entirely of processes of production, and that research and development is largely unnecessary and a luxury of those few who find their entertainment in it.
As such, a process of production is a form of exploitation of labor, and the process of research and development is an unnecessary device for the purpose of signaling status.
But this is all an illusion. An error at best, and a deception at worst.
All production in a competitive market at all times under all circumstances is an act of “research and development” at high risk.
Two private sector factors reduce that risk: superior knowledge of consumer wants, and superior knowledge of how to service them, more cheaply than someone else.
Two factors further reduce that risk: grant of privilege by the state that conveys a limited monopoly. And access to credit markets at lower rates.
The human bias in favor of the illusion of competence pervades the left and is its source of confidence. This bias is further reinforced by the false consensus bias, which confirms their illusion of competence.
Their participation in a discipline in which they hold the unique academic privilege of not being held accountable for their errors further reinforces both the false consensus and illusion if competence biases.
All economic action is risk taking.
The state grants privileges in the form of limited monopoly powers to certain industries in order to increase employment and taxes. It creates expansive credit to empower both industry and consumer to take risks.
If production were execution rather than risk taking, then credit and privilege would not be necessary.
But production is an illusion. The market consists entirely of research and development.
And the absurdly high turnover in organizations is but one proof of it.
Source date (UTC): 2013-01-18 15:27:00 UTC
THE FOURTH POLITICAL THEORY BY ALEXANDER DUGIN : Not much there.
You know, some day practitioners of the next evolutionary step in philosophy will look at we Post Analytic philosophers the way that we look at Analytic and Continental philosophers today: as well- meaning, and advocating good ideas, but doing so inarticulately because of some content or assumption pervasive in our arguments.
Dugin’s book tries to express aspirational ideas but he does so with quaint continental language. The problematic content of this language is at least the following:
1) lack of knowledge of formal institutions and how to use them to establish norms using incentives rather than advocacy. Habits and imitation rather than conscious and rational adoption of any behavior.
2) Lack of knowledge about economics and the economic impact of certain norms on the economy, and therefore the feedback loop into any ideology and it’s desired norms by the economic outcome produced by norms.
3) the circularity of any argument that relies upon emotional reactions that are based upon learned values. Versus the dependent arguments that rely upon demonstrated instincts independent of learned systems of values.
4) the structure of political ideology as religious yet open to voluntary adoption via linguistic argument rather than involuntary institutional incentives.
The “ten planks” were far more effective than all Marxist rhetoric ever was. And any hope of altering actions must place a cost on an adherent. Certainly consumer capitalism is difficult to choose not to adopt. It’s incentives are constant enough to override our social instincts.
So while I agree with Daugin and Benoist, that we need a fourth political theory, I suspect it will have to result from scientific arguments, recommended institutions and policy for those institutions to execute. It will certainly require a narrative. But it will not be a narrative constructed of continental and therefore circular, and religious language.
I’m sure our friends David Gordon or Rod Long could levy superior and more precise criticism. But I can’t. I don’t find it rewarding or useful to master the counter arguments to phlogiston theory.
This isn’t to say that there arent good ideas in the book. There are. And after the first chapter or two it improves. And for continental writing it’s well written.
It just not actionableoir desirable.
Source date (UTC): 2013-01-18 15:24:00 UTC
SAN FRANCISCO HAS RENTED ITS FOG TO SEATTLE FOR THE DAY.
Seriously. Zero Visibility.
Source date (UTC): 2013-01-18 03:43:00 UTC
LIBERTARIAN TERMINOLOGY: STATE AND GOVERNMENT ARE NOT SYNONYMS
THE PROBLEM IS NOT GOVERNMENT: THE PROBLEM IS THE STATE.
One of the problems we face in the libertarian movement is the confusion between the terms “state” and “government”. A government can consist of a constitution enumerating property rights, a private judiciary, and a volunteer militia. This government need not assist in the concentration of capital into infrastructure. It needs only to define a monopoly of property rights, and to provide the means by which to evolve that definition via the evolution of the common law along with the means of evading property rights that evolve along with the market .
When we use the term “state”, we refer to a bureaucracy that holds a monopoly on the use of violence and which holds a means by which to arbitrarily redefine property rights, and to confiscate and make use of property.
Our alternatives to the state rely on a formally articulated property rights and obligations, private judiciaries, competing insurance companies that provide all of the services we attribute to the monopoly that is the state, and private institutions (like stock markets) that concentrate capital for the purpose of creating infrastructure.
Libertarianism does not suggest solutions for creating a social order – the ability to cooperate at scale – that are without “government”. Even the anarchic program relies upon articulated private property rights – a government of norms, meaning informal but not formal institutions.
Instead, Libertarians argue against the “state” because it is a fictitious representation of a collective will that is better able to provide for wants than is the market. When in fact, the state is a vehicle by which a class of individuals profits by stealing from some constituencies to give to others.
We argue that the products of modernity exist because of the market, and that this prosperity exists in spite of statist governments who plunder us, not because of such statist governments.
Source date (UTC): 2013-01-16 20:15:00 UTC
HAPPINESS AND UNHAPPINESS
It’s not something with empirical support, just an observation that’s proven consistent over a lifetime: most unhappiness is the result of wishing someone else would act in a way that you wish they would, our by you acting differently from how someone else wishes you would.
Very few of us manage to realize the obvious fact that the world is absolutely overflowing with human beings. And you’re better off looking around for those people who you don’t want to act differently, and who don’t want you to act differently than you ever will be trying to change others or, sometimes, changing yourself.
It’s a demonstration of intelligence to make the choice to seek out others. It’s a demonstration of wisdom to know whether or not to change yourself. But only a fool tries to change others to suit one’s preferences. And thats mostly why the world is full of unhappy fools.
Unfortunately, family and familiar relations are cheap entertainment and security, many and people prefer to buy consistently unpleasant familial and familiar entertainment at low cost rather than invest in new relations us care far less about changing our familial relations, and far more about tolerating them. This isn’t so much just foolishness, but laziness or the poverty of the malcontented mind.
But the ability to joyfully tolerate unhappy family members who you wish would act differently, or who wish you would act differently, is a product of the number and quality of relationships who wish neither. So emotional wealth which we call happiness is the result of finding and cultivating those relationships.
Source date (UTC): 2013-01-16 16:23:00 UTC
A DEFINITION OF THE ETHICS OF LIBERTY
“Liberty is the freedom to do what you wish with yourself and the property that you have obtained by voluntary exchange or homesteading, where such use of your body and your property causes no involuntary transfers from others, either indirectly or directly by asymmetry of knowledge, fraud, theft, or violence, except for the single involuntary transfer we sanction in order to create the evolutionary market, and the evolutionary market’s benefits of increasing variety, and declining price: competition.”
– Curt Doolittle
This definition of the ethics of liberty is (I think) complete and correct. The Rothbardian definition of property is incomplete and therefore incorrect. It fails to account for the totality of demonstrated human behavioral preference regarding property. And that failure explains the rejection of Rothbardian Ethics as immoral. Rothbard’s error is similar to the reasons that Misesian Praxeology is incomplete and therefore incorrect when it claims apodeictic certainty. Mises failed to account for opportunity costs in praxeology. Possibly because doing so would have undermined his arguments. However, the only thing that changes if we complete Misesian Praxeology and Rothbardian Ethics is that we end up with Aristocratic warrior and the high trust society rather than the ethics of the Ghetto and Bazaar and the low trust society.
(Reposted from a comment I made elsewhere)
Source date (UTC): 2013-01-16 13:13:00 UTC
A FRIENDLY NOTICE TO RECENT FB FRIENDS
Please understand what I do. I write political philosophy. Conservative Libertarian political philosophy. This is not a game. It is not recreation. It is what I do. And I consider it the most important thing that I can do.
Facebook is a scratch-pad. A notebook where I try ideas that I’m currently thinking about. And It’s how I keep in touch with the other people who do the same. An argument is a philosophical proposition structured in statements. You can think of them as math problems of a sort. Sometimes, you have to work those statements out. Just like you work out math problems. I don’t know sometimes how those arguments will work out until I make them. FB is a place where I can make them and where, if I make some big mistake, someone will point it out to me. Most of the time I’m making similar arguments but trying to make them more simple and easier to understand. I even succeed at it sometimes. 🙂
I belong to organizations that are commonly called ‘think tanks’ that conduct a research program called “Anarcho Capitalism” in which we try to determine how to replace the monopoly we call the state and its bureaucratic government with institutions that are subject to competition and therefore less subject to systemic corruption. This is a noble cause. I am proud of my contributions to this cause. I am proud of what we accomplished over the past century.
But you don’t have to agree with what I write, even on the odd chance you understand it. And I would never ask you to. It’s OK with me. I am not trying to create popular music or god forbid, run for office. I’m trying to find a solution to a pretty important problem that’s at least 2500 years old.
But I value your friendship in real life, even if you are uncomfortable with radical political philosophy, and radical conservative philosophy at that. So please try to understand that there are some of us who think that our current system of government is based on concepts that are no more sensible than the religious mysticism it replaced. And that there are a few of us out here playing the role of Galileo, Hume, Darwin and Weber in the hope of finding rational solution to the problem of human cooperation that we call ‘government’.
And so the only thing I’ll ask you to look at me and my work through that lens. Even if you think I’m wrong. Because I acknowledge that I might be. 🙂
(It’s just unlikely) 😉
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2013-01-15 15:49:00 UTC
DEFINITION OF HBD: THAT RESEARCH PROGRAM WE CALL “HUMAN BIO DIVERSITY” HUMAN BIO-DIVERSITY: “The study of heritable human genetic differences and the variation in distribution of those differences within human populations that show affinity for one another. And where those affinities express themselves as political, social, familial, and personal institutions, behaviors, abilities and preferences. And where those expressions of differences have economic, institutional, and normative consequences, and where those consequences cause economic and political competition and conflict. HBD is an attempt to understand the source of differences in modes and methods of human cooperation due to biological and normative differences.” – Curt Doolittle