September 7th, 2018 12:41 PM REVIEWED BY REQUEST https://medium.com/@ciaran_92884/hierarchies-of-competence-competitive-proxies-and-the-conscious-generation-of-the-collective-df68e67bad03 Good try. Good thinking and good writing. But, you should study economics, law, political history, and war rather than whatever it is you are studying at the moment (software? computer games?), so that your framing, which is ‘ideal’ can be described in existential (real, operational) terms. If you did, you would grasp that you are saying what is common knowledge. So while you correctly understand the problem in ‘private language’ and you argue by ideal analogy, you are stating the obvious to those who are informed, and who argue not by analogy but by descriptive example of demonstrated human behavior. A market allows people with dissimilar ends to cooperate on similar means. A government creates markets by the suppression of murder, harm, theft, fraud, conspiracy, immigration, conversion, economic warfare, and physical warfare, using law, and communicating that law honestly (jurists, education), or dishonestly (priests, indoctrination). These markets function as the ‘games’ you refer to. They government and it’s military and judiciary in particular are compensated indirectly via taxation for suppression of the multitude of rents extracted otherwise. A ‘good’ government is merely one that survives competition so that people can organize, plan, produce, and inter-generationally survive. A ‘better’ government is one that is suitable to the needs of the population in competition with other populations, not one that is ideal and may or may not survive in competition with other governments. A ‘better’ government is one that creates survivable markets yet does not do so by creating rents, and whose externalities are not devolutionary. A ‘best’ government is one that provides higher returns from the markets to the people, than others so that their productivity is higher (time necessary to produce competitie returns is lower). Network effects always and everywhere create a majority (practical monopoly) player, where capital as previously a competitive advantage it no longer is so. And all of that said, people seek at all times to circumvent markets because they ARE competitive. If it is possible for people to seek and obtain power by political means they will do so rather than circumvent the market by cheating somehow, or compete in the market. People don’t want fair. The want unfair in their advantage. Why? Markets (games) produce Meritocracy, and Meritocracy screws the incapable and so, the incapable organize to circumvent the market by cheating, or circumvent the market by political control. Games exist precisely because they have immaterial outcomes. Markets exist because they have material outcomes. Political markets in particular either create more market conditions or less. So how do you get from where we are to the circumstance you are describing, as a series of steps? People don’t want fair. Markets do not seek equilibrium, but disequilibrium until crash. Because people do not seek fair, they seek advantage. And the seek advantage through every unethical immoral, and illegal means available Hence why we have such enormous institutions to prosecute those who circumvent the market. More than half of the population cannot read a manual and repair a device. The world must be organized for them. Because they are the problem. Not us. And organizing it for them requires continuous diligent education, training, disciplining, monitoring, policing, prosecution and punishment.
Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response
-
September 7th, 2018 12:41 PM REVIEWED BY REQUEST Good try. Good thinking and goo
September 7th, 2018 12:41 PM REVIEWED BY REQUEST https://medium.com/@ciaran_92884/hierarchies-of-competence-competitive-proxies-and-the-conscious-generation-of-the-collective-df68e67bad03 Good try. Good thinking and good writing. But, you should study economics, law, political history, and war rather than whatever it is you are studying at the moment (software? computer games?), so that your framing, which is ‘ideal’ can be described in existential (real, operational) terms. If you did, you would grasp that you are saying what is common knowledge. So while you correctly understand the problem in ‘private language’ and you argue by ideal analogy, you are stating the obvious to those who are informed, and who argue not by analogy but by descriptive example of demonstrated human behavior. A market allows people with dissimilar ends to cooperate on similar means. A government creates markets by the suppression of murder, harm, theft, fraud, conspiracy, immigration, conversion, economic warfare, and physical warfare, using law, and communicating that law honestly (jurists, education), or dishonestly (priests, indoctrination). These markets function as the ‘games’ you refer to. They government and it’s military and judiciary in particular are compensated indirectly via taxation for suppression of the multitude of rents extracted otherwise. A ‘good’ government is merely one that survives competition so that people can organize, plan, produce, and inter-generationally survive. A ‘better’ government is one that is suitable to the needs of the population in competition with other populations, not one that is ideal and may or may not survive in competition with other governments. A ‘better’ government is one that creates survivable markets yet does not do so by creating rents, and whose externalities are not devolutionary. A ‘best’ government is one that provides higher returns from the markets to the people, than others so that their productivity is higher (time necessary to produce competitie returns is lower). Network effects always and everywhere create a majority (practical monopoly) player, where capital as previously a competitive advantage it no longer is so. And all of that said, people seek at all times to circumvent markets because they ARE competitive. If it is possible for people to seek and obtain power by political means they will do so rather than circumvent the market by cheating somehow, or compete in the market. People don’t want fair. The want unfair in their advantage. Why? Markets (games) produce Meritocracy, and Meritocracy screws the incapable and so, the incapable organize to circumvent the market by cheating, or circumvent the market by political control. Games exist precisely because they have immaterial outcomes. Markets exist because they have material outcomes. Political markets in particular either create more market conditions or less. So how do you get from where we are to the circumstance you are describing, as a series of steps? People don’t want fair. Markets do not seek equilibrium, but disequilibrium until crash. Because people do not seek fair, they seek advantage. And the seek advantage through every unethical immoral, and illegal means available Hence why we have such enormous institutions to prosecute those who circumvent the market. More than half of the population cannot read a manual and repair a device. The world must be organized for them. Because they are the problem. Not us. And organizing it for them requires continuous diligent education, training, disciplining, monitoring, policing, prosecution and punishment.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-06 20:29:00 UTC
-
Untitled
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-06 17:01:00 UTC
-
Not disagreeing, I’m merely referring to dissenting public speech, and that was,
Not disagreeing, I’m merely referring to dissenting public speech, and that was, as I understood it, the scope of the original post, and my comment on it.
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-05 15:23:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1037360616657379329
Reply addressees: @etraditionalist
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1037360112279711744
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1037360112279711744
-
It’s Time To Break Up Facebook
Professor Who Coined Term ‘Net Neutrality’ Thinks It’s Time To Break Up Facebook (theverge.com) Best known for coining the phrase “net neutrality” and his book The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires, Wu has a new book coming out in November called The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age. In it, he argues compellingly for a return to aggressive antitrust enforcement in the style of Teddy Roosevelt, saying that Google, Facebook, Amazon, and other huge tech companies are a threat to democracy as they get bigger and bigger. “We live in America, which has a strong and proud tradition of breaking up companies that are too big for inefficient reasons,” Wu told me on this week’s Vergecast. “We need to reverse this idea that it’s not an American tradition. We’ve broken up dozens of companies.” “I think if you took a hard look at the acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram, the argument that the effects of those acquisitions have been anticompetitive would be easy to prove for a number of reasons,” says Wu. And breaking up the company wouldn’t be hard, he says. “What would be the harm? You’ll have three competitors. It’s not ‘Oh my god, if you get rid of WhatsApp and Instagram, well then the whole world’s going to fall apart.’ It would be like ‘Okay, now you have some companies actually trying to offer you an alternative to Facebook.’” Breaking up Facebook (and other huge tech companies like Google and Amazon) could be simple under the current law, suggests Wu. But it could also lead to a major rethinking of how antitrust law should work in a world where the giant platform companies give their products away for free, and the ability for the government to restrict corporate power seems to be diminishing by the day. And it demands that we all think seriously about the conditions that create innovation. “I think everyone’s steering way away from the monopolies, and I think it’s hurting innovation in the tech sector,” says Wu.
-
It’s Time To Break Up Facebook
Professor Who Coined Term ‘Net Neutrality’ Thinks It’s Time To Break Up Facebook (theverge.com) Best known for coining the phrase “net neutrality” and his book The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires, Wu has a new book coming out in November called The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age. In it, he argues compellingly for a return to aggressive antitrust enforcement in the style of Teddy Roosevelt, saying that Google, Facebook, Amazon, and other huge tech companies are a threat to democracy as they get bigger and bigger. “We live in America, which has a strong and proud tradition of breaking up companies that are too big for inefficient reasons,” Wu told me on this week’s Vergecast. “We need to reverse this idea that it’s not an American tradition. We’ve broken up dozens of companies.” “I think if you took a hard look at the acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram, the argument that the effects of those acquisitions have been anticompetitive would be easy to prove for a number of reasons,” says Wu. And breaking up the company wouldn’t be hard, he says. “What would be the harm? You’ll have three competitors. It’s not ‘Oh my god, if you get rid of WhatsApp and Instagram, well then the whole world’s going to fall apart.’ It would be like ‘Okay, now you have some companies actually trying to offer you an alternative to Facebook.’” Breaking up Facebook (and other huge tech companies like Google and Amazon) could be simple under the current law, suggests Wu. But it could also lead to a major rethinking of how antitrust law should work in a world where the giant platform companies give their products away for free, and the ability for the government to restrict corporate power seems to be diminishing by the day. And it demands that we all think seriously about the conditions that create innovation. “I think everyone’s steering way away from the monopolies, and I think it’s hurting innovation in the tech sector,” says Wu.
-
Our “Roskomnadzor”: American Censorship Is Merely Privately Funded
—“The West also has its Roskomnadzor (Ros’-ko-mnad’-zor / Роскомнадзор), but it’s private.”— Maxim V FilimonovRoskomnadzor: The Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media or Roskomnadzor is the Russian federal executive body responsible for censorship in media and telecommunications Founded: May 12, 2008 Number of employees: 3,019 (2017) Headquarters: Moscow, Russia Parent agency: Ministry of Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media of the Russian Federation —“If you want to know the correct opinion on anything relating to the internet – censorship, privacy, net neutrality, bluecheck privilege – it’s the opposite of what the NIGARFAGTs want: Netflix, Instagram, Gofundme, Amazon, Reddit, Facebook, Apple, Google, and Twitter.”—Michael Andrade (Via Steve Pender)
-
Our “Roskomnadzor”: American Censorship Is Merely Privately Funded
—“The West also has its Roskomnadzor (Ros’-ko-mnad’-zor / Роскомнадзор), but it’s private.”— Maxim V FilimonovRoskomnadzor: The Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media or Roskomnadzor is the Russian federal executive body responsible for censorship in media and telecommunications Founded: May 12, 2008 Number of employees: 3,019 (2017) Headquarters: Moscow, Russia Parent agency: Ministry of Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media of the Russian Federation —“If you want to know the correct opinion on anything relating to the internet – censorship, privacy, net neutrality, bluecheck privilege – it’s the opposite of what the NIGARFAGTs want: Netflix, Instagram, Gofundme, Amazon, Reddit, Facebook, Apple, Google, and Twitter.”—Michael Andrade (Via Steve Pender)
