Author: Curt Doolittle

Over on Economists View, where the left seems to hang on like dirty ruffians intent on downgrading the local bar, Mark Thoma posts a misleading article: “About That Mediterranean Work Ethic” Do Greeks work less than Germans?, which states that Greeks work a lot of hours, perhaps more than germans. Which is a pointless and false because it is intentionally misleading, because it assumes individuals are equally productive and the societies  are collectively equally productive, when in fact, the term ‘productive’ means ‘the market price of stuff produced per human hour’. One of the people who leaves a comment sees through the veil and says: “These kind of statistics are not enough….”. Which is correct. They don’t tell us anything. Another who lives in Italy says “The problems here are political and cultural. It’s very frustrating to see…”. Which again is correct. Work is an individual expression. [callout] Productivity is an INSTITUTIONAL problem: people lack the institutions and habits by which to create productivity by forming capital alliances in GROUPS[/callout] Productivity is an INSTITUTIONAL problem: people lack the institutions and habits by which to create productivity by forming capital alliances in GROUPS. In Italy (like in southern california) business stay artificially small because of tax and benefit predation by the government, rather than encouraging competitive business, and taxing the very large corporations with whom the state must do business and support. Another says “Greece has crazy early retirement ages and a tax collection system that is pathetic?” Which is true. These are institutional problems. Largely political problems. But people in democracies CHOOSE their governments, now, don’t they. And Another (by a leftist sycophant who goes by the pseudonym of Paine) attempts to avoid the cultural and institutional predicament, as well as the problem of the productivity of the greek people, as well as the culture of corruption, by saying it’s all a problem of insufficient TAXATION. But WHAT KIND of taxation? Let’s look at this a bit. Yes, the chart is misleading (and so are Paine’s arguments, and in so many dimensions, per usual, that refutation is the process of tedious swatting of gnats who by virtue of their simplistic reproductive capacity put a drain on one’s energy simply by their volume.) First, the Greek problem is productivity not work hours: the market competitiveness of one’s goods and services in relation to one’s trading partners, divided by the number of human work hours necessary to produce the goods and services. The Greeks work longer hours to produce goods of lower value than that of their neighbors.

[callout]the Greek problem is productivity not work hours: the market competitiveness of one’s goods and services in relation to one’s trading partners, divided by the number of human work hours necessary to produce the goods and services. The Greeks work longer hours to produce goods of lower value than that of their neighbors.[/callout]

Second, the institutional reasons within the system that either encourage or enforce that behavior: lack of return on efforts due to a) silly cultural ideas, b) lack of education in productive information, c) lack of advanced institutions, d) private and political corruption and political impediment, e) political predation on the productivity is out of proportion to the marginal effort and risk needed to produce increases in productivity, f) cultural regression due to status impact of success on group cohesion (the urban african american versus the eastern orthodox ethos versus the jewish or protestant ethos. Third, the cooperative and competitive relationship between groups of different cultures: groups ‘fund’ shared objectives by forgoing opportunities. Forgone opportunities are a cost. Taking advantage of opportunities is a theft from those who forgo them. Since different cultures have different ambitions embedded in their habits, there is a forgone opportunity competition that permanently divides people with dissimilar interests. This is WHY people of different grope dimensions compete with one another: differences in forgone opportunity costs.

[callout]groups ‘fund’ shared objectives by forgoing opportunities. Forgone opportunities are a cost. Taking advantage of opportunities is a theft from those who forgo them. Since different cultures have different ambitions embedded in their habits, there is a forgone opportunity competition that permanently divides people with dissimilar interests. This is WHY people of different grope dimensions compete with one another: differences in forgone opportunity costs.[/callout]

Fourth, the status economy is material to people because they ACT as though it is material to them. Just as the race-preference is material to people because they ACT as thought it is material to them. Just as the creed-preference is material to people because they ACT as though it is material to them. And, precisely because of the forgone opportunity costs associated with those preferences. Most cultural differences have to do with the impact on social status of different forgone opportunity costs. People do not want to give upon their investments. Biases are NOT fanciful or meaningless: most often they directly impact mating choices, social status and therefore group-economic status.  Ie: people stay in-group often because they are given better status signals in-group than extra-group.  They transact across group, but they status-seek within group. Argument by emphasizing the material economy alone is a convenient way of distracting the argument from the forgone opportunity economy (discipline), and the opportunities, resources, financial, and labor costs that are required to create those institutions.

[callout]Argument by emphasizing the material economy alone is a convenient way of distracting the argument from the forgone opportunity economy (discipline), and the opportunities, resources, financial, and labor costs that are required to create those institutions.[/callout]

In the cast of Greece, it is a poor and corrupt culture that cannot create hard-working low-friction institutions that allow people to increase productivity by the process of constant creative destruction. It appears that Greek IQ is declining slightly probably due to poor urban education. And this has material impact on a society: assuming a broad enough population, people with IQ’s above 122 design machines, people with IQ above 105 repair machines, and people with IQ’s below 105 are limited to using machines. IQ distribution matters because it affects the general set of institutions that a body of people can develop. Education differences can depress IQ means by as much as twenty points. (Exactness of this is disputed but it’s certainly ten points). This mean limits the productivity of any nation, and in turn the appropriate institutions for any body of people. We are not equal in ability to comprehend abstractions, nor in our group ability to produce abstraction-producers and consumers in sufficient numbers to lather the group’s competitive advantage.

[callout]assuming a broad enough population, people with IQ’s above 122 design machines, people with IQ above 105 repair machines, and people with IQ’s below 105 are limited to using machines. IQ distribution matters because it affects the general set of institutions that a body of people can develop.[/callout]

Germany is a nearly land locked, oceanic temperate and continental temperate country of rivers and friction-able land transport that despite constant attempts of external containment has remained productively competitive for two millennia. This is accomplished by the discipline of forgone opportunity in order to create institutions that accumulate competitive advantage at a material cost to the citizens as individuals, but which is a cumulative investment of high returns for the group. Greece is a geographically advantaged, climate advantaged, port-rich country with limited agrarian potential, and a large urbanized population with few choices but to increase productivity. Institutional development costs are the HIGHEST productive cost paid by any civilization. That is why the non-corruption habits are so rarely developed in the world. (We do not yet know why some cultures have such a difficult time forgoing opportunities for gratification and developing longer (lower) time preferences. There are both biological and cultural and environmental hypothesis.)

[callout]Institutional development costs are the HIGHEST productive cost paid by any civilization. That is why the non-corruption habits are so rarely developed in the world.[/callout]

After forgone opportunity costs. The second highest cost is human capital: literacy, education and training. The third highest cost is the political institutions. The fourth highest cost is economic institutions (credit, banking, contract) And lastly comes the material cost of resources. These costs, when combined with the realities of group IQ differences, when combined with the realities of territorial resource availability, are the primary reason for development differences between cultures. We do know that Greece and spain were more productive cultures before Spain experienced new world gold, and before Greece was administered by the ottomans. So it would appear that these are not biological problems, but institutional (cultural and habitual, and political) problems. Greece is less productive because it’s institutions are poorly paid for by forgone opportunity, because their government is corrupt and bloated, because their people work in unproductive efforts, and because they have no group incentive to work otherwise – and so Greece is poorer because of its instutions. And since germans pay the forgone opportunity cost as well as the monetary cost, they are (rightfully) resentful of it. And the convenient myopia of quants is that they disregard REAL costs of action in preference for visible monetary costs simply because of the ease in which the data can be collected. A convent way of perpetuating leftist ideas – ignoring the majority set of costs in preference of the confirmation bias permitted by the data that’s easier to collect. As the right always says “we are not against taxes we are against bureaucracy”. The problem is not taxation. It’s the USE of taxes to steal the productive result of forgone opportunity costs : double taxation on the productive which only serves to limit the investment by the non-productive in the bank of forgone opportunity costs, which are, in reality, the primary cost any civilization must pay : behavioral costs. Property itself is a forgone opportunity cost. The more granular and abstract we make our definitions of property the more opportunity that people have to steal it. Objective truth telling is a forgone opportunity cost. Each forgone opportunity for deception and fraud is a high cost. One does not need to be materially wealthy to pay that cost. One simply needs to forgo opportunities to profit from deception. One does not need to be deprived of good pay as a bureaucrat, one needs only to forgo opportunities to charge for one’s services rather than render them at the lowest cost to the beneficiary.

[callout]This is the moral argument for redistribution of wealth: if you conform to forgone opportunity costs, you may receive redistribution from the results of productive ends. But ONLY if you pay your ‘taxes’ in forgone opportunity costs.[/callout]

Or put another way: the secret to the success of the pacifist monotheistic scriptural religions is that they undermine the forgone-opportunity-cost economy via redirection of opportunity costs toward the group-persistence costs of a new social institutions, and away from materially productive institutions. In other words, they are a non-participation rebellious movement, a form of economic tax evasion. (In case this isn’t clear, there are two forms of tax evasion: monetary and forgone opportunity, with the productive classes seeking to evade monetary taxation and the unproductive classes seeking to evade forgone opportunity costs.) This is the moral argument for redistribution of wealth: if you conform to forgone opportunity costs, you may receive redistribution from the results of productive ends. But ONLY if you pay your ‘taxes’ in forgone opportunity costs. In other words: conform or no redistribution. This effectively is the german argument against Greece. Or more precisely, monotheistic religions are resistance movements and they are what people like Paine advocate: the adoption of a lower cost forgone opportunity strategy that undermines the productivity of the more productive classes, making them subservient to the resistance movement. Greece needs an austerity program. It needs freedoms to compete disruptively internally, it needs to concentrate its capital on goods that are competitively productive, it needs to improve its infrastructure. It needs a broken window policy of zero tolerance (the place is a dump), it needs regulations on quality (which are underrated as a social institution), it needs better education. But most of all it needs the elimination of a predatory state whose members see their positions as personal property to be exploited rather than a public service to be rendered at the lowest cost to the population. Leftism is predation on the productive classes. Rightism is too often predation on the non-productive classes. (Productivity being different from labor hours). The issue for any culture is to reduce predation in favor of cooperation, maximizing the productivity of the group in response to other groups. Acknowledging inequality is only acknowledging rarity. we are vastly unequal in our abilities. Therefore we are vastly unequal in our productive capacities. However, we are equally productive in our ability to forgo opportunity from theft or fraud, especially theft by over breeding one’s self into permanent poverty. If you conform to these institutions, then you are PAYING for these institutions, and therefore you are EARNING some amount of redistribution. But if you are not willing to work regardless of the job (as are the Japanese and chinese) and if you are not willing to forgo drugs and violence and theft, and if you are not wiling to forgo the effort of manners and ethics and morals, then you are not worthy of redistribution of the productive gains because you have not PAID for the effort needed to create the institutions that make such productive gains POSSIBLE. We can all equally forgo opportunity. In this context, Universal egalitarianism is simply another means of predation on the productive classes. Which means predation on the society itself. Greece needs to pay it’s taxes. It needs to pay it’s forgone opportunity tax. It needs to pay it’s monetary tax on the result of productive efforts. The most important feature of taxes on productivity, is that it incentivizes the government to enforce forgone opportunity costs, for the purpose of increasing productivity. This creates cultural unity, class unity, and competitive advantage for the group.

[callout]And “it is not taxes that are paid, but unpaid” is true. It is the unpaid tax of forgone opportunity cost which is the very ‘charge’ for entering the civilized market, and becoming a citizen rather than a barbarian.[/callout]

Ie: Paine is advocating thievery, economic and social destruction here on a daily basis, by simply replacing the absurd moral arguments of monotheistic scriptural religion with the one-sided absurd argument of economics and egalitarian redistribution of productive gains in order to fund his predation on the productive classes, so that he, and others, do not have to pay the forgone opportunity costs needed to create institutions that permit productivity. Yet another silly religion that is simply a rebellion movement that justifies tax evasion. And “it is not taxes that are paid, but unpaid” is true. It is the unpaid tax of forgone opportunity cost which is the very ‘charge’ for entering the civilized market, and becoming a citizen rather than a barbarian. Hayekian knowledge is economic knowledge: it’s an institution. And it’s the most expensive institution we have to pay for.

In taking a survey on liberal and conservative morality, I came across a question that asked me to define morality, and gave it an answer that I thought I would share here as part of my ongoing effort to provide conservatives with a framework for rational debate, rather than watch them continue their reliance upon tedious irrational arguments consisting of sentiments (conservatism) or legality (classical liberals) or an absurd single class state (libertarianism) or abandonment of government altogether (anarcho capitalism). Rothbard and Hoppe have given us a language, we just have to apply it to a multi-classed society wherein we hold trade routes and keep the proletariat from revolting. A Definition of Morality: In the sequence of cooperative social protocols beginning with manners ( limited personal consequences to one’s status), followed by ethics (externalized consequences of actions wherein one may be subject to retribution) , followed by morals (fully externalized consequences wherein one may steal from others unaccountably or irreversibly), Morality consists of those common habitual principles and descriptive statements by which which we codify and distribute the cultural rules of economic constraint whereby individuals pay for membership in the benefit structure of the group.In other words, manners, ethics and morals are human social general accounting principles. VIolation of moral principles is theft from those you do not know. Violation of ethical principles is theft from those who you may know. Violation of manners is petty theft from those who you do know. While these thefts may not be quantitatively measurable because of their incommensurability in units of measure, they are qualitatively accumulative in the form of decreased potential that may be drawn from the opportunities created by the division of labor.

[callout]There are habitual property criminals…[And] there are habitual ethical and moral criminals. … Moral violations are forced redistributions to moral criminals[/callout]

There are habitual property criminals. There are habitual ethical and moral criminals. Moral violations are forced redistributions to moral criminals. There is a Moral economy wherein different moral theories compete for economic dominance, just as there are political and financial economies wherein we compete for redistribution by the violent force of the state. Just as there are competitions between nations we call wars. it is our failure to articulate these actions as costs that make the political resolution of our differences impossible. Curt Doolittle – www capitalismv3 com

Joseph Postell of the Heritage Foundation, whom I admire, posts an article in today’s Washington Times entitled Constitutional Decline. Keeping the tradition of picking on your friends, because it’s simply an easier way to make a point than systematic refutation of your enemies, I respond in this posting with a sketch of a more appropriately rational solution, and a more causally descriptive one, than Joseph’s comforting but in-actionable sentiments. His proposition is:

If we are seeking the most effective means of defending – and restoring – the Constitution, we must pay attention to the rise of the administrative state and the decline of constitutional government in the United States. … The Founders confronted a basic problem: How to vest government with sufficient power to get things done without giving it the instruments to exercise tyrannical control? To protect individual liberty and rights, they established (among others) two basic principles at the center of our constitutional order: representation and the separation of powers. To assure that government operated by consent, they provided that those responsible for making laws would be held accountable through elections. Moreover, legislative, executive and judicial power would be separated so those who made the laws were not in charge of executing and applying them. …

[callout]… our problem is that we have outgrown, … the civic republican model that is based upon a separation of powers and the … process of rational debate, because our legislators are not free of the limits that socialists fell prey to: the limits of legislative incentives and the limited information necessary for economic consideration, calculation and forecasting. … Our government literally consists of a technological strategy insufficiently informed to make the decisions with which we have empowered it. [/callout]

Joseph blames the problem rightly on the corrupt bureaucracy. But does not know how to solve the problem: our model of debate is insufficient for our complexity of civilization. We have abandoned communism and socialism because of the problem of incentives and economic calculation in favor of redistributive democratic secular humanism, without understanding that conservative values and classical liberal procedural limits on power or not, our problem is that we have outgrown, by the division of labor and knowledge, and the increase in technological velocity, the civic republican model that is based upon a separation of powers and the calculative process of rational debate, because our legislators are not free of the limits that socialists fell prey to: the limits of legislative incentives and the limited information necessary for economic consideration, calculation and forecasting. Our government literally consists of a technological strategy insufficiently informed to make the decisions with which we have empowered it. Therefore it is open to abuse – not simply because of intention, but because of folly and a lack of means by which to conduct a rational argument. We must divide up the problem of governance differently – while adding computational capability and adding incentives for responsible actions to an increasing number of people – the vast majority of them citizens who are members of the private sector. In other words, the problem is one of calculation: we lack the data to make rational judgements and therefore rely on sentiments. We lack the incentives and therefore fall prey to the bureaucracy. Joseph, Your argument and your sentiments are admirable. But the institutional problem is well understood. It lies in describing the additions to the constitution such that we create alternative institutions free from bureaucratic corruption, yet which are practically implementable, and which would not require violent revolution, nor extraordinary suffering to implement. As well as a plan of implementation and schedule. Sentiments are easy. Sentiments are wishes in the wind. They are the dreams and fantasies of well intentioned men capable of nothing but exposition. They are the masculine version of a romance novel – experientially pleasant but materially vapid.

[callout]Sentiments are wishes in the wind. They are the dreams and fantasies of well intentioned men capable of nothing but exposition. They are the masculine version of a romance novel – experientially pleasant but materially vapid.[/callout]

Plans are tangible things open to action, improvement and criticism. And since Mises, Hayek, Popper, Parsons and Rothbard failed to define a rational model for the post-agrarian world, there is no institutional model by which to deliver us from evil so to speak. Our problems are non-trivial, and vastly more complex than reverting to the debate structure of the framers, wherein a small number of men simply exaggerated the city-state model of the greeks, relying upon the wisdom of platonic pseudo-philosohpher kings to make good judgment despite their representation of craftsman, merchant and farmer alike. This is too simple a form of government for a nation of hundreds of millions producing tens of millions of products and services, and a worldwide empire of trade, trade routes, and a world monetary system we treat as third party, but which, like international policing and trade routes, is the primary source of our empire’s power. Our government has expanded and corrupted into exactly what was predicted by the Iron Law of Oligarchy: We have added judicial review – legislation from the bench. We have added a state sponsored religion: democratic secular humanism. And ostracized the church. We have allowed a bureaucracy to develop that cannot be shut down. We have become an empire over distinctly different cultures with distinctly different economic interests. We have become externally dependent upon our most competitive resource – energy. We have transferred the culture from saving while productive to lend while in retirement, to inter-temporal redistribution from the productive to the unproductive. We have converted government from it’s objective of increasing productivity for the purpose of international competition to the effort of redistributing hypothetical gains at the expense of international competition – we have created the predatory state instead of the productive state. [Callout]We have converted government from it’s objective of increasing productivity for the purpose of international competition to the effort of redistributing hypothetical gains at the expense of international competition – we have created the predatory state instead of the productive state.[/callout] We have converted from a culture of integration whose problem was to enfranchise farmers for the purpose of securing our interior from external conquest, to a culture of disintegration that actively undermines integration. We have all but dissolved the states and oppress the country’s center at the bequest of the coasts. We have destroyed our currency, overextended our empire, exhausted our cultural habits of saving and the ‘Protestant ethic’. And turned our cultural majority into a cultural minority open to conquest by tribal primitivism on a scale and at a speed which would have horrified and panicked Roman citizenry. We have instituted ponzi-insurance schemes under the premise of reducing risk for the few, but in doing so created a redistributive scheme of permanent debt, and insurmountable risk for the many.

[callout ]We have instituted ponzi-insurance schemes under the premise of reducing risk for the few, but in doing so created a redistributive scheme of permanent debt, and insurmountable risk for the many.[/callout]

We have squandered a century of post-european manufacturing advantage, not to improve our competitiveness, but to export our jobs in the silly believe that the price reductions would be worth the competitive loss of jobs, as if all men in america could be rocket scientists and engineers. We have immigrated cheap labor without understanding the cost of delaying our children’s entry into the work force. We have demasculineized our military without understanding that the secret to western individualism is in the fraternal order of self-sacrificing soldiers, who by their risk gain earned enfranchisement and after such risk would not become obedient to authority. We have allowed our military to become an administrative machine, and police force only able to operate hierarchically rather than a collection of warriors capable of post-industrial defense and conquest from multiple independent angles. We have adopted silly pseudo-libertarian monetary policy and exposed our lower classes to terrific long term risk, and privatized great wealth at the expense of our working classes. We have trained two generations of children to be lifestyle pets rather than productive and competitive citizens. We have demasculinated men and made vast numbers of them abandon society for the comfort of video games or sports, and allowed feminists to take our their wrath on men rather than on the church, the state, and ignorance itself. And forced men into aged poverty in order to secure a consistent standard of living for children who have yet to become productive. We are a debt society with a predatory redistributive kleptocratic state bent on accomplishing through debt slavery and constitutional circumvention what cannot be accomplished through the proscribed constitutional rules and voluntary democratic process. But worse of all, we have vastly increased the division of knowledge and labor and become a society managed by credit rather than law or religion, but we have not updated our government to consist of institutions that act as a bank, when the credit function is primary lever of our post-religion, post-law government. We must amend our constitution for this reality. Our government must act as a bank whose duty is to issue loans and cooperate with the private sector, and socialize the profits of competitive advantage. for redistribution to the common people. It must take only calculated insurance schemes that are the product of gains in productivity earned by borrowing on the promise of the common people. This institutional change will have behavioral consequences that will remake our state as one that is competitive, and resurrect us from the simpleton idiocy of the redistributive and irresponsible state whose actions are not measured, not earned, and only stopped by near revolt at the ballot box, but inescapable once implemented as law. We must relieve the house of commons from the act of taxation ,and allow it only investment and redistribution of the profits. We must close the department of education and institute a voucher scheme. We must privatize all functions of the state and open them to competition. We must vote directly with dollars against competing published contractual budgets, rather than competing individuals whose promises are immaterial. We must restore the senate to election by the state legislatures, and limit both the volume of taxation and origin to the senate.

[callout]We must reform our lending system so that loans are not escapable by the originator, and vastly increase the number of bankers, and their quality, so that they are at the level of our lawyers, rather than at the level of our book keepers.[/callout]

We must reform our lending system so that loans are not escapable by the originator, and vastly increase the number of bankers, and their quality, so that they are at the level of our lawyers, rather than at the level of our book keepers. We must restore local banking and personal advocacy of individuals by bankers, so that we do not devolve into an class of the enslaved, as ignorant of compound interest and risk as we are of laws and due process. We must sunset all laws so that they die along with the poor fools who write them. Laws too often institutionalize silly ideas that would be destroyed by the market of daily experience. We must disallow the development of regulations outside of the legal process, and destroy the power of the bureaucracy permanently. We must separate property definitions, and abstract property definitions (like CDO’s, patents, copyrights, stocks) from the legislative process by creating registries for all legally reconcilable traded property types, and remove the ability for patents to prevent products from seeing the market. Put to practice is insufficient a test for protection: put to market is the only protection we should offer. We must change corporate law to provide the same freedom to sole proprietors and partnerships and LLC’s and SC’s and Corps so that we only have one body of law for each, and one method of taxation for all. We must change taxes such that they do not distort human cooperation, require little or no overhead, and are all based upon both income and balance sheet, so that we encourage men to become independent, but protect the people from the political class of financial predators who circumvent the market purely by the application of capital. We can have redistribution. People under fiat money are DUE redistribution, because it is they who are borrowed against and whom take the risk.

[callout]We can have redistribution. People under fiat money are DUE redistribution, because it is they who are borrowed against and whom take the risk.[/callout]

We can maintain our empire, our freedom, our way of life. But it must be calculable to be responsible and accountable. Right now it is unregulated chaos of extreme borrowing using snake oil formulae peddled by charlatan economists, snake oil mathematicians and other hucksters who are no better than entrail-readers, oracles and bone-augers and less accurate it turns out at inter-temporal prediction than the average man on the street. THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM FACING US IS THE WEAKNESS OF THE DEBATE MODEL OF GOVERNMENT IN THE FACE OF THE CALCULATIVE COMPLEXITY OF OUR CIVILIZATION. OUR MODEL IS JUST TOO WEAK. The problem of socialist calculation is still evident in the debate model of government. OUr problem is sufficient information to make decisions, and limiting decisions to where we have sufficient information, and avoiding legislation that uses quantitative, methodological and ideological charlatainism. Some of us who spend time on these theories are diligently working in back rooms, offices, academic institutions, think tanks, cars and showers to solve this problem. But it is not a problem of sentiments. It is a problem of execution.

[callout ]Institutionalizing this degree of change will not come without violence or trauma. It never has. It never will. [/callout]

Institutionalizing this degree of change will not come without violence or trauma. It never has. It never will. There are too many with vested interests feeding off the predatory state. But some of us are now more willing to take that risk than we were over the past decades. And it takes only about five percent of a population to force such a change, if that group is willing enough to act to enforce the change.

Arnold Kling continues one of his themes by writing on one of my favorite topics, “The Churches Of Government”, where he laments the overlaps and conflicts between different conservative and libertarian philosophies.

You see, I think that the overlap between liberals and libertarians is somewhat suspect. The libertarian thinks that government should get out of the business of regulating marijuana primarily because the libertarian believes in limited government. The liberal thinks that government should get out of the business of regulating marijuana because the liberal doesn’t think marijuana is such a problem.

And later he explains the philosophical problem:

Still, I believe that it ought to be possible for a conservative to be in the Church of Limited Government rather than the Church of Unlimited Government. In theory, I would think that a conservative might really care about education or health care without necessarily favoring government involvement. However, in practice many conservatives went along with President Bush when he expanded Medicare and the Federal government’s role in primary education. My sense is that his approach to conservatism has few adherents at the moment.

To which I would respond, that the reason for confusion on this issue is the failure of the conservative, classical liberal, and libertarian movements, to provide an articulated alternative solution to socialism while at the same time, maintaining their long standing justification for taking power from the monarchy in order to implement a democratic republic managed by the capitalist class.

[callout]… the reason for confusion .. is the failure of the conservative, classical liberal, and libertarian movements, to provide an articulated alternative solution to socialism while at the same time, maintaining their long standing justification for taking power from the monarchy.[/callout]

And finally, a reader comments: “From a libertarian point of view, it would be inconsistent to advocate legalizing marijuana and banning trans fats.” And from there I try to use the author’s and reader’s inability to distinguish the reasons for regulating products differently as one of state intervention not of market management. Actually, the two issues are different. Marijuana The only reasons to ban marijuana are: 1) Because it impedes the mind, and therefore choice, and choice is a necessary capacity, and necessary assumption, in the libertarian model. This is a technical concept, not a practical one. 2) Because you can expose others to risk due to impaired judgement, largely while driving a vehicle. This concept is both technical and practical. Justifying the application of force must be both technical (epistemically rational) and practical (materially implementable). Epistemic applications alone are infinite and open to error. (ie: laws should be enforceable not specious.) Trans fats Foods are a voluntary health issue, not an externalized risk issue or capacity issue. The libertarian concept of freedom allows people to harm themselves. However, since it is not possible to make a rational choice over the content of goods , regulating labeling is not a question of freedom but a question of limiting fraud or accidental harm in a market. Libertarianism’s Failures Classical liberalism is an outgrowth of conservatism. Libertarianism is an outgrowth of Classical Liberalism. Rothbardian anarchism is an outgrowth of libertarianism. The only fully articulated philosophy is the Rothbardian. The Classical Liberal philosophy is analogistic, pragmatic, and contractual. But it is a practical moral philosophy, not a necessary logical philosophy. Necessity and utilitarianism are two different kinds of problems. Rothbard fully articulated his philosophy of natural law. But in doing so, by assuming the principle of non-violence, he avoided the problem of creating markets, the costs to people of having done so. And instead, by circumventing the natural law of violence ended up advocating a religion of property. Hoppe improved this line of thinking by developing private institutions that provided public goods, and reinforcing the concept of natural law, by the ARgumentation Ethic which purportedly demonstrates that property is natural to man. But these methods are flawed because they start with non-violence and trade, rather than the human capacity for violence and fraud, and the necessity of building and creating markets. In that sense, while anarchists have made innovations ( monarchic inter-temporal incentives, private insurance institutions ) they have failed to provide an answer for advances in abstract forms of property, and as such are providing solutions that are regressive as did Marx. A market is a joint stock company that was invested in by the fraternal order of soldiers who then collected fees for their service in creating that market. Merchants enter the market by registering products such that they meet the market criteria so that the shareholders experience an appreciation in value. The common people gain access to the market by respecting property, which is a material forgone opportunity cost. Everyone pays, and everyone profits from market participation. The history of economic thought is the history of demonizing monarchs for the purpose of transferring control of the market from it’s military founders, to the vendors – the middle classes. This demonization is nothing but falsehood. As it turns out, kings were kinder to their populations than are republican and democratic governments. But because of this demonization, the causal origin of civilization, of cities, of markets, of prosperity, and of western culture itself, is obscured by the rhetoric of demonizing the nobility who created this culture under which we prosper. Despite it’s variety of logical strengths, libertarian philosophy contains a number of errors, the most influential of which is in confusing the role of government as necessarily social in nature or necessarily defensive in nature, or a tool of class exploitation, versus the historical and causal origin of government as a protector and regulator of markets.

[callout]Markets are the primary social institution of post tribal man. Governments have no reason for existence outside of Markets[/callout]

Markets are the primary social institution of post tribal man. Governments have no reason for existence outside of Markets. Government IS a market function, because the purpose of government is determining the rules of the market which funds the government. Trade exists without government, but markets do not. Advanced markets for the trading of abstracts do not. All forms of property beyond portable personal property (several property) require registration, and rules for exchange in the market. The primary difference between the concept of trade and the concept of market is one of anonymity — whereby the market operator places some guarantee on the products offered so that the market’s shareholders can create a competitive advantage against other markets, and to reduce the cost of conflict administration within the market.

[callout]The difference in cultures is simply in the definition of ownership of different forms of property that they permit in their markets.[/callout]

The difference in cultures is simply in the definition of ownership of different forms of property that they permit in their markets. And these differences are material: the more granular the property the more liquidity and velocity it produces, and the greater the division of knowledge and labor that is possible. This culture of Market-Making is one of the three causal differences for western civilization versus the central and eastern models. (The other two differences being military tactics that required enfranchisement – leading to debate, reason an science, and IQ distribution mixed with resource and transport availability.). Libertarians confuse fear of abuses by the government with the necessity of constraining the government to the maintenance of the rules of the market, and the value in those rules as a means of increasing the productivity of the market and their yield from that market. Libertarians have abandoned the problem of managing the market, and therefore have become a religious institution not a political institution. That is the difference between religion and politics: the market and the absence of it. Because in large part, neither institution has been rational, only practical. Conservatives lack the ability to articulate their concepts in other than moral terms. Libertarians do significantly better. But both systems of thought are lacking in an understanding of what they argue for. Libertarians, despite being a minority selling a minority philosophy, seek to create a nation governed by a ‘religion of property’ in order to exit the influence of government. When in fact, government is responsible for making the market, and libertarians should lobby for additional rules to limit the state. Not limiting the state to social activities of dubious non-market nature, but to it’s role in regulating the market and evolutionary increases in defining the ever expanding set of objects and options we refer to as property, and which we frequently trade, so that we, as a people, maintain a competitive advantage against other markets. The problems with the anarchic movement are substantive in that they do not account for market-enhancing asymmetries, versus market-harming asymmetries. In other words, they are advocating the ‘buyer beware’ ethic of the Bazaar, rather than the ‘seller responsibility’ that is required of participants in the Market. This is not an advantage to the shareholders (citizens).

[callout title=Trade and Market Are Different Systems][anarchists] are advocating the ‘buyer beware’ ethic of the Bazaar, rather than the ‘seller responsibility’ that is required of participants in the Market. This is not an advantage to the shareholders (citizens).[/callout]

The problem with our institutions is that they do not separate redistributive efforts from market efforts. Libertarians (of which I am a member of the group of theorists) would be better served by abandoning our rhetoric of monarchic criticism, and instead develop a language and metaphysics such that we can provide an institutional response to an increasingly complex world in which we must register, trade and police a market of increasingly vast and complex products and services, so that we may maintain our competitive advantage over the rest of the world.

[callout title=Separation Of Church And State]The problem with our institutions is that they do not separate redistributive efforts from market efforts.[/callout]

And abandon luddite religions of all sorts. That includes all forms of the Church of Limited Government and Church of Unlimited Government. Instead, a rational epistemology can be applied if we simply look at the material problem of building and maintaining markets in an increasing division of knowledge and labor, where most of our inventions are abstractions that like large numbers, are beyond the ability of our perceptions. That is the one and only important function of government, after territorial defense and the policing of trade routes. And the implementation of rationalism is in separating our institutions such that redistribution is held by one house, and market regulation by another. Further, our separation of banking, including the currency, credit and interest (which has replaced both our religions and our code of laws as our primary means of maintaining social order) is insufficient for the current state of our division of knowledge and labor. That system of institutions and approach to analysis is Post-Rothbardian libertarianism. And it is the only rational alternative to encroaching socialism. Libertarianism was hijacked by Rothbard simply because Hayek, Parsons and Mises failed. And both Rothbard and Hoppe created extraordinary epistemological and institutional value with their research program. But they have failed, as did the libertarians, and the classical liberals, and the conservatives before them, to create a system of institutions capable of providing an alternative to the anti-market anti-civilization sentiments and philosophy of socialism by failing to articulate the causal purpose of government as market maker, and to create institutions that expand and evolve along with the objects that we exchange in that market. And that is your solution membership in A Church: the articulated causality of the market and it’s institutions and the purpose of government communicated by the technique which we call ‘reason’.

The right is very angry right now, even more angry than the early Clinton years. And they are only going to get more agitated. De -masculinizing the military was Clinton’s only real mistake, as the military fraternal order and its meme of group-persistence are conservative’s most agitating sentiment. Obama’s transfer of risk from the poor (unenfranchised risk creators) to small business owners and professionals (enfranchised risk takers), and his general attack in word and deed on the right’s social status and values, plus the sentiment that the ‘rules of the game’ (the constitution, which is the core value of The Classical Liberal wing of Conservatives) were violated to pass the healthcare bill over the will of the populace, have inflamed them. Furthermore, the right lives in a consciousness of the status-economy, which consists of accumulated sacrifices in order to achieve status, and status which increases the probability of opportunity, and opportunity which when combined with risk, create wealth and security. This status-economy is universal, permanent, and material, and vastly amplified in any heterogenous empire. (Conservatives don’t wear funny hats as identity symbols, everyone else wears Conservative hats in order to enter the conservative status-economy.) Just like taxes which are a cost, there is a maximum amount of wealth transfer that a group will tolerate. The political problem is no longer money. It has become a status problem in a heterogenous empire. Empires break because of such differences. (Empires break for two reasons: excess cultural heterogeneity and insufficient institutional calculability: religion and law are insufficiently marginal influences in heterogenous urban societies. No civilization has survived the transition from homogenous to heterogenous density, because it ceases to be in group interests to pay the opportunity cost of respecting institutions whose underlying causal pressure to conform to them diminishes with anonymity. And for your side, the left, it would help if one did not confuse preferences with truths. Because equality, as a value, is contra-logical to the status economy. There is no evidence that people are equal, nor that equality can persist for any period of time. There is a minimum interpersonal, and inter-class, status delta that is tolerable in any society, and the more diverse that society, the more exaggerated must be the delta. This is as much a law, as is supply and demand. And only silly people think otherwise. As for exemplary European models applied to the US, and perceived happiness thereof as a metric, the power-and-weakess discount must be applied to europeans, as demonstrated by the written record of migrants, almost all of which choose the USA model over the european simply because of decreased costs. The opinions europeans hold of their policies are not met by the opinion of european and american expatriates, who actually possess the information to make such a valuation. The popular opinion is nothing but the reversal of power and weakness postwar. Combined with the homogeneity of the germanic countries, this creates an opinion-bias that makes european opinion irrelevant to American policies. The problem for our nation, is that we are an empire that used to be 80% homogenous, becoming an empire whose cultures are increasingly at material odds. In particular the status-discount whites have been paying is reaching intolerable proportions. Why? Because there is a maximum cultural delta, not the least of which is driven by IQ variances. But primarily driven by the human preference for similar-looking and similar-acting people. That preferences is material because of the STATUS economy experienced by people who compete across racial and cultural boundaries. In other words, for the majority, there is a status advantage, and therefore an economic advantage to group identity. In other words – Cultures do not integrate when status deltas reach a cliff-effect. Instead, they hunker-down in tribes. The data is becoming quite clear that the american melting pot was a myth post-european integration. It is a myth here, and will be a myth here and everywhere. And when people do not integrate, they do not tolerate redistribution. It’s funding you’re opposition. This is the reality of human existence. As for the popularity of leftist sentiments versus conservative sentiments, the country is vastly center right. But our universities, are vastly left. Our business community is vastly right. One of these communities is an outgrowth of theology. The other operates using practical techniques. Conservatives never forget this. Liberals (the left kind) always choose to.

Mark, over on CARPE DIEM quotes Mises, who said:

The champions of socialism call themselves progressives, but they recommend a system which is characterized by rigid observance of routine and by a resistance to every kind of improvement. They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty. They call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship. They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent. They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office. Every man but a subordinate clerk in a bureau. What an alluring utopia! What a noble cause to fight!

[callout title=’Conservatism’] “…. liberals are too conservative to embrace capitalism.”[/callout]

And to which he recieves a number of interesting comments, but one that deserves an answer:

“Aren’t some rules necessary? Aren’t some goals the proper purpose of government?”

Of course, rules of the market are necessary. The purpose of government is to administer markets. Without markets there is nothing to defend, so defense is a subset of market activity. Without markets there is nothing to redistribute, so redistribution is a subset of market activity. Without contracts and property there are not disputes to resolve so the judiciary is a subset of market activity. Without types of property to register, to codify, and to determine the properties of, there is no reason to legislate. Government, in the sense that we have a military force, we make and adjudicate laws, and redistribute some income, is unnecessary without a market. In fact, there is only one form of government: a government that administers a market. All abuses of government are abuses of the definitions of property for the purpose of reverse redistribution from the common to the authority by use of force. Government itself is a MARKET ACTIVITY. Otherwise it is just organized theft or fraud. In this sense, I am not sure that redistribution is a government activity, or if it should be separated from market governance. This is, actually, the underlying problem with our form of government: it is based on the city-state history of europe, and the simplicity of those states. Parliaments took over from kings. Multi-houses took over to balance power. But we did not develop houses for separate purposes. Instead, they all must agree on solutions that can be universally proposed, rather than each devoted to proposals limited to their scope of knowledge and influence. In three different pieces today I’ve tried to convey the idea that the market and property in themselves are institutions that were created by ‘regulation’. This does not mean that we have full power over the market, it means that the market is a deliberate institution, not an invisible hand, that has been paid for. And by following the chain of causation we can both understand it’s costs, and understand it’s limits, and in understanding it’s limits, understand how and when to increase regulation of the market: we can increase it along with the abstractions that are traded in it. Because all forms of property are defined by different ‘properties’. Life, real property (land), Improvements (immovable property), several property (movable property), opportunities, commitments, abstractions (patents and trademarks), and cooperative tools (morals and ethics), and to some degree metaphysical abstractions such as funding the implied costs hidden in our social conventions. If we can ACT on it, then it is a function of trade, exchange, cost and cooperation. Property is just a subset of market activities that require physical resources. However, the majority of trade is made in lower cost people’s actions and people’s forgone opportunity to act.

[callout title=’Foregone Opportunities Are Costs’] “… civilization’s institutions are built almost entirely out of the cost of forgone opportunity.”[/callout]

In fact, civilization’s institutions are built almost entirely out of the cost of forgone opportunity. The minority of our costs go to institutions like buildings and monuments and roads and bridges. The majority of social costs go to forgone opportunity, the respect for property, ad the maintenance and definition of different kinds of property, and the institutions we use to register and account for property of all kinds, from Cars, and Houses to Marriages and Trademarks. If you grasp this concept of the forgone opportunity economy, libertarianism as it is currently constructed by the Jewish arm of the movement (Rothbard and Friedman) fails for ethical, economic, and rational reasons, while the Christian arm of the movement (classical liberals and Hayekians) fail because of their failure to articulate their movement in something other than historical analogy and post-religoius moralism. Despite being right (in both senses of the term) they cannot articulate why they are so. And the problem is worse for conservatives who rely on unarticulated habits so old they have been reduced to sentiments and invective. I don’t make those errors. I’m trying to give conservatives a language for competing with socialists, who have been developing a form of articulated argument for a century and a half, despite achieving massive murder and destruction. But back to the current state of affairs: I think socialists are just moving gradually, at the extremes via incrementalism. they are able to make these incremental violations by taking advantage of the limited ability of human memories to sense change in time, and they can do so because we have not institutionalized the government such that we can isolate market legislation from redistributive legislation. This is effectively the corruptive influence on our government. I refer to this form of corruption as ‘pooling’. That is, institutions cannot have mixed purposes without MIXING those purposes. The socialist movement has abandoned it’s pursuit of control over the means of production as technique for achieving redistribution and focuses instead on direct partial redistribution wherever they can find an opportunity. But they have not abandoned Ponzi schemes that confuse insurance, which is a probabilistic cost, with redistribution, which is a certain cost. Social security was a probabilistic insurance scheme when few people lived to collect it. But it’s a certain cost today. Nor have they abandoned totalitarian administration of scarcities like health care and retirement income, nor addressed that the scarcity of these services (not commodities, but services which require people, which cannot be solved by increases in production, only that increases in production in one commodity industry can drive down the quality of people in another service industry. I do not think that the influence of, or driving force of the left’s ambition of social status equality versus freedom from poverty is adequately discussed in the literature. Since tomorrows luxuries become today’s commodities, poverty is constantly redefined, and status redefined, and redeveloped on a constant basis. Status is their objective, not redistribution alone. Nor do we sufficiently discuss the fact that people do NOT integrate, do not acculturate but hunker down in their own communities. And where they do integrate, it’s a status ambition by the middle classes, and not integration so much as cooperation. In fact, the general shift has been away from ‘becoming an american’ to living in the ‘american empire’ under the ‘american code of laws’, while retaining one’s cultural identity. This is, in many ways, a strategy for attainment of social status. Nor do we discuss the EFFORT required of those to whom we redistribute money on the maintenance of their property and our institutions – and their lack of effort expenditure even when they are property holders. Since American exceptionalism is likely to have passed it’s prime – the world has adopted western political, economic, and production technologies in what will (for IQ, geographic, and cultural reasons) likely be a permanent global labor class, which will put permanent economic pressure on our middle and lower classes – we will not be able to assume a world of infinite inter-temporal redistribution based on the assumption of growth any longer. If we can reinstitute mandatory savings instead of inter-temporal redistribution, and temporal redistribution into savings rather than consumption, we can probably correct most of the errors that socialists have burdened us with, and put the “saving-sensitiblty” back into the cultural vernacular. Redistributing earnings into savings is a form of reallocation that is both logical and moral in a society that employs fiat money borrowed against the future efforts of the working classes. But monetary redistribution is one thing. Risk redistribution is another. Inter-temporal monetary and risk redistribution are something else altogether because they are incalculable. (Taleb/Mandelbrot/Hakey/Mises). Conservatives and libertarians on the other hand, must understand that the market itself (not trade, but the market) as well as the institutions of property and contract and objective truth, are all forms of regulation.

[callout title=The Market Is A Form Of Regulation]Conservatives and libertarians on the other hand, must understand that the market itself (not trade, but the market) as well as the institutions of property and contract and objective truth, are all forms of regulation.[/callout]

Markets as we understand them are distortions of human behavior. Even the competitive benefits of the market are obtained by the efforts of people to circumvent the market converted to good use. Western civilization differs from other civilizations by it’s consistent application of the gladiatorial rules to market exchanges – they are presumed to be fair. And by fair we mean, that one can only win if the other wins as well. There are limits to the fairness of market activity: if one attempts to circumvent the market’s purpose for existence (prosperity) and the reason markets were created (to take advantage of trade routes conquests) and whom they were created by (the fraternal order of soldiers, which is our cultural source of individual responsibility), then the activity is not a market activity and instead is either Fraud or Theft. Not morally, but materially. Because the market is PAID for via foregone opportunities to commit fraud or theft. These are material costs. So there is no such thing as a ‘free market’. We pay to create it by foregone opportunity. It exists because we register these costs of foregone opportunity as rules of the market. And a market can only exists where trade routes are paid for and sanctioned by a division of labor’s specialists at holding land and trade routes: the risk taking soldiers. George Soros and Goldman Sachs circumvented the market, and privatized wins while socializing losses. This is not a market activity. France nationalized the Rothschild’s, and it’s a miracle that England did not nationalize Soros’ money because it privatized wins and socialized losses. The purpose of markets is not to replace the military class with the banking class. It’s to make the banking class, the military class, the merchant class, the clerical class, the craftsman class and the laboring class all benefit by increased division of labor and knowledge that leads to increasing production (Yield per man hour) and decreasing prices. Socialists do not want to ENTER the market because they are afraid to lose – they are stuck in a world of trade rather than markets. This is their fundamental problem. The market is a Circus: a Gladitorium. It is a boxing ring. It is gambling. It is risk. The rewards of the market come from RISK – not TRADE but RISK. It is this market speculation that constantly leads to wins for the spectators. The difference between conservatives and liberals, between conservatives and socialists, is in the difference between the Market, risk and opportunity economy, and the Trade and craftsman economy – progressives are regressive Luddites just as was Marx: seeking to return to the trade economy rather than the market economy. To some degree liberals are the equivalent of color blind. They do not see that the benefits that they live upon are the result of material risk taking. Conservatives do. And it is convenient for them not to see it Liberals like Krugman are simply buried under silly cultural mythos that they mask as economic doctrine – confusing preference and cultural bias with market truth. Krugman’s only objective is to undermine the western white military hierarchy and replace it with the debt slavery of politicized bankers. Libertarians (Rothbardians) are simply buried under the silly cultural mythos that they mask as economic doctrine – confusing the practicality of a RELIGION that favors only one minority class, without understanding the opportunity and forgone opportunity costs, as well as material defense coasts to both capture land, maintain trade routes, and establish and police the rules of the market. LIbertarians (Hayekians) have not produced a synthetic strategy for implementing calculative (rational and calculable) institutions that can replace the political institution of legislative debate (non-rational and incalculable). Although they are probably the most sensible group in the economic sphere. This is a solvable problem some of us are working on diligently. Libertarians (Friedman Monetarists) have been proven wrong by current events, as was Keynes, for exactly the reasons Hayek demonstrated. They are too close the the science to see it’s costs – and too happy to have others pay for the tragic cost of their experiments.

[callout title=It’s A Problem Of Institutions]The anarcho capitalist libertarians have developed this philosophical structure but it emphasizes free trade and personal property as a means of achieving a class-based exit from the influence of political institutions rather than the wholesale reformation of those institutions.[/callout]

As Godel demonstrated and as Taleb says, there are a class of problems impervious to statistical analysis. Numbers and models are an extension of our senses. They are not descriptions of future courses of events. But rationality goes out the window under universal egalitarian democracy rather than meritocratic republicanism: as others have said here, progressives have engineered a dependent class, the inverse of the historical politically dependent classes, and that dependent class is accumulating political power slowly but constantly. And what they do not achieve by dependence they achieve by immigration. So, I see no reason to celebrate until we develop a Post- Conservative, Post-Classical Liberal, Post-Libertarian, Post-AnarchoCapitalist solution. That solution must achieve calculative temporal redistribution, savings rather than intertemporal ponzi schemes, and increase the complexity of government (market making) such that we have institutions that cannot pool their interests in order to change the government’s job from market making, to market exploiting. This is the great myth of left liberalism and right libertarianism: that the market simply ‘exists’ because of an invisible hand. Trade exists. A market of risk tolerance that allows the concentration of capital does not exist without the force of violence to prevent violence, and to compensate and punish for fraud. And only silly libertarians think so.

[callout title=Fixing Liberarianism] For the anarcho capitalists to correct their system, requires they integrate the forgone opportunity economy into their articulation of the explicit economy.[/callout]

The anarcho capitalist libertarians have developed this philosophical structure, but emphasize free trade (and personal property as a means of achieving a class based exit from the influence of political institutions) rather than the wholesale reformation of those institutions so that they do not have to escape those institutions. For the anarcho capitalists to correct their system, requires they integrate the forgone opportunity economy into their articulation of the explicit economy. And in doing so this would force them to realize that their principle of non-violence is simply a silly religious dictum, and a false starting point for any theory of market activity to give their ‘class’ power in society. Rather than understanding that their class must share power in society in order to create the very markets that they depend upon. My position is that we cannot fix those institutions without crisis or violence. But perhaps, the threat of violence can achieve the crisis which will allow the reformation of the institutions for the protection of all. This strategy would put the republic back into place, while realizing that a republic of farmers is a republic of equals, and a republic of an advanced industrialized society competing in globalized economy requires that we have a more complex political system than the farmer-system we inherited from the classical liberals who were our founders.

[callout title=The Virtue Of Violence]My position is that we cannot fix those institutions without crisis or violence. But perhaps, the threat of violence will encourage the crisis which will in turn allow the reformation of the institutions for the benefit of all.[/callout]

All we can know for certain is that the socialist method is, and always will be, a failure, given any significant period of time, and the calculative libertarian method will always be a success given any significant period of time.

Default, Devaluation, Or What?

Is there anything more to say about Greece? Actually, I think so.

Krugman goes on to comment on the loveliness of more debt. Why? Because debt causes two systemic changes. First, it transfers power to the banking class and the state. Second, it replaces law, custom, and religion, as a means of social management. We have evolved three systems so far for managing society: first phase: religion and shared labor, second phase: law and taxation, and third phase: credit and debt. My Krugman wants us to enter the third phase without understanding the first: concentration of resources, the second: trade routes and markets, or escaping it’s claws. [callout title=Debt Slavery]Mr. Krugman your world view is full of debt slavery.[/callout] The truth is that we must keep each of these systems of social organization. Religion is a means by which we establish general goals for concentrating effort and resources. Soldiery and market making allow us to control land, trade routes, and to build markets and a division of labor. Credit and Debt let us build a more complex world of incentives and regulations on a more granular individual basis so that we may increase the division of knowledge and labor. But none of these systems is sufficient alone. A reader comments to this effect on Mr Krugman’s blog:

Konstantin, New York, N.Y. May 4th, 2010 Mr. Krugman your world view is full of debt slavery. Greece should leave the tyrannical European Union and then if it wishes can devalue their currency but not too much.

To which I responded:

“Mr. Krugman your world view is full of debt slavery.” Quite true. But this strategy suit’s Mr Krugman’s desire to move society from upper class military control over trade routes for the purpose of creating markets, to working class bureaucratic control over individual lives for the purpose of creating the illusion of psychological certainty. In other words, from a growing to a dying society. Since we possess too little information to predict the future, we invariably make our judgements about the future according to our class and cultural metaphysical assumptions. We confuse these assumptions or ‘preferences’ for truths. But they are just ‘silly ideas’ writ large, whose silliness is obscured by ignorance, time and complexity.

And unfortunately, it would be a full time job to criticize Mr Krugman’s silly logic. He complains elsewhere that the volume of criticism has increased of late, and that it’s from the Crazies. Crazies simply include a vast number of people in and out of the profession that see him as not an economists but a political hack. But I’m not sure that there is any better way of illustrating the foolishness of the left than to build a body of work that articulates one’s position by showing the consistency of errors in one’s opposition. And it’s entertaining as well as utilitarian. Unfortunately, I dislike the man.

Think of how much easier the job of government is, when instead of seeking competitive increases in production, it seeks redistribution and reduced unemployment. The first requires that you have some comprehension of your economy. The second requires that you have little to none.

[callout title=The Net Effect Of Keynes]The net effect of the Keynesian revolution was to change the purpose of the government from one of concentrating capital such that the population would derive benefits from increases in competitiveness and production, to one of consumerism, whereby the citizenry is discouraged from saving in order to create consumer velocity.[/callout]

The net effect of the Keynesian revolution was to change the purpose of the government from one of concentrating capital such that the population would derive benefits from increases in competitiveness and production, to one of consumerism, whereby the citizenry is discouraged from saving in order to create consumer velocity. We have accomplished that objective. We have converted to the consumer society and shipped the productivity of our lower classes offshore, and made the upper classes dependent upon the lower classes consumption. We have destroyed the cultural habit of saving. And with it, the culture of individual responsibility. Our whole country lives under the myth of prosperity without applying a discount to the increased risk we are exposed to by our hubris. The responsibility of the state is capitalization which reduces risk. Not consumption which increases it.

[callout title=Callout Title]Think of how much easier the job of government is, when instead of seeking competitive increases in production, it seeks redistribution and reduced unemployment. The first requires that you have some comprehension of your economy. The second requires that you have little to none.[/callout]

I am not against redistribution or the insurance-state. I am against the destructive state. And our state has become destructive. It has become destructive because it has become consumptive. And it justifies that consumption by leaving competitive increases to the private sector, despite the market’s incapacity for extraordinary investments. We need 200 nuclear power plants. We need a new power grid. We need to convert to electric cars. We need to rebuild the voting system and reform the houses of government. We need to increase research funding for hard sciences and decrease it for humanities and social so called sciences. We need to change the structure of the tax code. We need to change accounting procedures that allow causal laundering of money. We need to restructure corporate law so that we can de-corporialize the corporation so that it must serve customers or fail. We need to reform the banking industry. We need to privatize the administration of social insurance. We need to do a hundred other things that will create institutional improvements for the population to compete against other nations who have cheaper labor costs. Yet we consistently fall under the Keynesian spell, and distract ourselves from the meaningful work of building a competitive society.

Today, on United Liberty, the daily Jefferson quote was:

“I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” – Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush (1800)

Freedom is created by, and maintained by, the use of violence, and a man’s capacity for violence is his political wealth. The promise he will use his violence to create freedom, is met with the lack of his need to use it for any purpose whatsoever. It is a wealth sparely spent with high returns.

The conservative complaints with social security are that it is not a fund, but a state-expanding tax. Nothing was paid into it, and therefore it is simply a current tax to redistribute from young producers to old consumers who failed to save. And secondly, that this tax also funds an intrusive and abusive government. These are structural complaints, not complaints about ambitions or outcomes. The original creators’ ambition for this tax was to create an insurance scheme for the minority of people who lived past 65. Except, people vastly live beyond 65 today. In other words, the tax went from low to high risk because of unforeseen consequences. The conservative objection to liberal hubris is that they are asked to absorb risk because of the STRUCTURE of this system, which is now a form of intergenerational welfare, rather than the form of insurance that it was designed to be. The solution to this structural problem is as follows: 1) to convert from an inter-temporal redistributive and high risk tax to a low risk insured savings program. 2) To change from income tax to balance sheet tax. 3) To have the government participate in, and redistribute, profits from the use of credit money – credit money which is borrowed from and secured by the promise of labor by the average person. This set of changes would eliminate benefits at a specified multiple of the mean. It would unfund government bureaucracy. It would insert more money into the economy as investment capital, and decrease the negative effect of inflating the monetary supply on savers.

[callout title=It’s A Tax]social security … not a fund, but a state-expanding tax. Nothing was paid into it, and therefore it is simply a current tax to redistribute from young producers to old consumers. [/callout]

The general argument against the correction of the social security system, is that if we increase the tax by 2% and change the age slightly, that the system as it stands would be fully funded. To which I’d counter, only if that 2% comes from balance sheet weight, not income. Because for a vast number of companies that are not subsidized by the financial markets, 2% would be half of their annual profits, and this failure would have to be built into the system. I see no reason to rely upon assumption that the 20th century, which consists largely of the greatest external advantage that a nation has ever experienced, can be used to project the future. It is not logical to ask decreasingly populous generations facing increasing worldwide competition to support a longer living and increasingly expensive class of retirees, when instead, retirees should have saved to lend money to the generations that follow. These advantage are not sustainable, and even if they are, the system currently asks all to risk in order to fund current government, rather than all to save, to insure their mutual success. The belief that we will continue our economic advantage is the myth of american exceptionalism. Savings is sustainable – in any culture. But not the assurance of worldwide competitive advantage which can be redistributed. As an entrepreneur, I do not fear the market. I fear that the government will extort enough from the entrepreneurial class that they will abandon their belief that they can outpace the predatory state. Tax individuals not by income but by balance sheet. Progressively tax companies for market participation. Eliminate the double tax system on dividends. Increase the tax on speculative returns.

[callout title=Fears]I fear that western advantage, which was demographic, technical and military, will be neither demographic, technical, or military. And that the very institutions that were limited enough to guarantee us our freedom will be the institutions by which we are permanently enslaved and impoverished.[/callout]

I fear that the bureaucracy, as in the UK, will become a predatory class living on a virtually enslaved population. I fear that western advantage, which was demographic, technical and military, will be neither demographic, technical, or military. And that the very institutions that were limited enough to guarantee us our freedom will be the institutions by which we are permanently enslaved and impoverished. It is easy to rate the success of any government by the direct redistribution divided by the cost of government employees, and seek to constantly improve the ratio, just as we do for non-profits.