-MY OWN TINFOIL HAT WARNING-
So, what happens if the chinese keep extending the bubble so that it pops closer to 2020 when the USA hits it’s similar cycle AND the demographic cycle, AND europe hits its hard wall, AND the USA loses a grip on the international pattern of finance and trade?
Sea Peoples. It’ll be like the sea peoples. lol
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-01 16:03:00 UTC
http://www.johnmccaskey.com/joomla/index.php/blog/71-new-libertariansEXCHANGE AND CALCULABILITY NOT ARBITRARY MORALITY
John.
Good piece. Although, I’m critical of philosophical pretense in social justice as much as I am in the market.
If any judgment is beyond our perception, and any concept of social justice is, then we must, as in all other matters where complexity exceeds our perception, develop some kind of instrumentation and means of calculation such that we can reduce that which we cannot perceive, to some analogy to experience that we can perceive. Moral rules are not sufficient for achieving that kind of instrumentation, or performing that kind of calculation. The problem requires formal institutions and means of calculation. We have the market for cooperating on means even if we disagree on ends. We have the government for forcing cooperation on means and ends by majority rule. We have accounting to assist us in the perception of that which we cannot possibly grasp without it. And we have economics to attempt to measure our success. But we have no such instrumentation and means of calculating social justice – or even defining such a thing as social justice. (Which current psychologists and economists suspect is reducible to status seeking, and insurance against risk, and nothing more.)
While we might continue in the methods of the past, and attempt to concoct yet another empty incalculable moralism for the purported common good, these are value judgements and nothing more. They are incalculable. Most of the post-enlightenment effort has considered society a monopoly, in contrast to the pre-enlightenment condition of most urban cities, as federations of minorities denied access to political power, and forced to compete outside of politics, in the market. So the idea of social justice is an artifact of monopoly democracy rather than a federation of disparate interests.
However, libertarians rightly argue that the only moral test is that of voluntary exchange free of violent coercion. I argue that this ‘test’ is incorrect, since no in-group human organizations demonstrate that low a level of trust, And instead all groups demonstrate and require higher standards of trust, tah also forbid free riding, deception, cheating, as well as burdening other group members indirectly. However, whether we accept a low trust society and high demand for external authority that low trust societies demonstrate, or a high trust society and the low demand for external authority that high trust societies demonstrate, the underlying argument that the only test of moral action is voluntary exchange. So the effort that political philosophers left, libertarian and right have expended under the universalist assumption of the enlightenment has been to find some justification for moral decision making even if the knowledge to make such decisions is impossible both in the market, and afterward, using the profits created from the market.
The question instead, is how to construct institutions with which groups can conduct voluntary exchanges, which are by definition moral. Majority rule does not allow this. Majority rule is sufficient for the selection of priorities in homogenous polities with homogenous interests. The market is the means by which heterogeneous polities cooperate on means despite different interests on ends. But how can we construct an institutional system that allows the construction of commons, and other exchanges between groups and classes, but is not dependent upon a monopoly bureaucracy, majority rule, or representatives open to influence, special interest, and corruption? Because a government of contracts, not laws, would allow the exchange of say, adherence to traditions and norms, or requirements for married families in order to obtain redistribution. This would make government a means of cooperation rather than the source and facilitator of conflict.
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev
http://www.johnmccaskey.com/joomla/index.php/blog/71-new-libertarians
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-30 13:48:00 UTC
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/042914-698893-toyota-moves-from-torrance-california-to-dallas-texas.htm#ixzz30LdXIxBEBUSINESS AS ENEMY COMBATANTS: 250 MAJOR FIRMS LEAVE CALIFORNIA SINCE 2011
“[They have] a regulatory structure in California that treats businesses, especially manufacturers, like enemy combatants. Joseph Vranich, a California-based business relocation adviser, who has long tracked the migration of companies from California, cites more than 250 major firms that left the state since 2011 through last year. Why? “Today,” he said, “California businesses can reduce costs by 20% by moving to many states and up to 45% in some areas.” One big cost factor: California’s green-energy mandates are driving up electric utility costs to near the highest in the nation.”
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-30 02:24:00 UTC
BOILING FROG?
Contrary to popular imagination, the frog does eventually realize that the water is boiling. Apparently, like the frog, humans eventually realize that their tax, regulatory, and legal policy are killing them. But only when its too late.
Our civilization is about to boil. And I’m going to add salt to the water.
http://english.caixin.com/2014-04-22/100669023.html
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-29 13:02:00 UTC
“BENEFICIALLY NOVEL, GOOD, BAD(WRONG), AND DANGEROUS”
(Discussion on Bleeding Heart Libertarians: The Measure of an Economist or a Philosopher)
All,
A good economists provides us with insights into the state of affairs we live in. A novel economists provides us with new general rules (a theory). A good philosopher explains or re-explains the changes in the world to us in current language. A novel philosopher provides us with a new general rule (a theory).
It is not better to be good or novel. It is most important that one not be dangerous.
Freud, Marx and Cantor reintroduced mysticism in the form of obscurantism. Russell compounded that new mysticism. The postmoderns have been terribly damaging to institutions, morality and language. Rothbard did more damage than good. Most of his history is quite good. His ethics were a catastrophe and set us back by decades. A disaster I have been struggling to correct.
So one can be novel, one can be good, one can be wrong and one can be destructive. I don’t care much about the first three. The fourth quadrant is what I worry about most. Because bad and dangerous philosophy turns out to spread far faster than good and beneficially novel philosophy. Just like bad news spreads faster than good.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute.
Kiev.
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-29 10:05:00 UTC
[W]hy should I squander my earnings through redistribution? Why should I squander my savings through redistribution? Why should I squander my culture’s high trust norms through redistribution? And why should I squander my genes through dysgenic redistribution? If you claim to have rights to your earnings, to your life, and to your property, then why do you only have those rights and not the right to your other forms of capital? My purpose is to promote my genes, even at the expense of others genes. If we can cooperate while I do that then that’s fine. But if we cannot cooperate while I do that, then there is no point in cooperation. We all demonstrate our time preference. That’s mine. That’s everyone on earth’s preference other than W.E.I.R.D’s – who are demonstrably suicidal. Squandering your inheritance is suicidal.
[W]hy should I squander my earnings through redistribution? Why should I squander my savings through redistribution? Why should I squander my culture’s high trust norms through redistribution? And why should I squander my genes through dysgenic redistribution? If you claim to have rights to your earnings, to your life, and to your property, then why do you only have those rights and not the right to your other forms of capital? My purpose is to promote my genes, even at the expense of others genes. If we can cooperate while I do that then that’s fine. But if we cannot cooperate while I do that, then there is no point in cooperation. We all demonstrate our time preference. That’s mine. That’s everyone on earth’s preference other than W.E.I.R.D’s – who are demonstrably suicidal. Squandering your inheritance is suicidal.
PROPERTARIAN ANALYSIS Let me ‘get all Propertarian’ here. Define properties, axis, actions, Property, and costs. BIOLOGICAL TRUTH TABLE: Ternary : Neutral(Null), Benefit (True), Harm False) RESULTS (In Descending Order) 1) Mutualism: both organisms benefit. TT 2) Commensalism: one benefits without affecting the other. TN 3) Parasitism: one benefits while the other is harmed. TF 4) Amensalism: one is unaffected and the other is harmed NF 5) (?): both are harmed : FF OPPORTUNITY COSTS vs FIXED PRODUCTION/CONSUMPTION The biological model above does not account for opportunity costs from production, where production in a division of labor. We must correct the difference between organisms that engage in production and those that do not. An opportunity cost is the DIFFERENCE between one choice and another. In other words, only mutually productive exchanges are free of loss. ie: there is only one T position in the truth table. Unlike non-producing organisms. Biology is a poor analogy, because production is nearly unique to man. Lets see if I can simplify this even more without losing the central idea. EXAMPLE A and B engage in a mutually productive exchange. Neither A nor B at this moment have a more productive exchange to engage in. This is the maximum yield any action can produce, at zero opportunity cost. Every action OTHER than this one decreases the benefit and increases the opportunity cost from zero. CORRECTED TRUTH TABLE P= Production , ~P = Lost opportunity for production, H=harm 1) Mutualism: both organisms benefit. TT => P1 + P2 = TRUE 2) Commensalism: one benefits without affecting the other. TN=> P1 + ~P2 = FALSE 3) Parasitism: one benefits while the other is harmed. TF=> P1 + ~P2 – H2 = FALSE 4) Amensalism: one is unaffected and the other is harmed NF=>~P1 + ~P2 – H2 = FALSE 5) (?): both are harmed : FF => ~P1 + H1 + ~P2 + H1 = FALSE EXCEPTION: MODIFIED BY KIN SELECTION Genetic Distance: || Humans demonstrate kin selection; treatment of self, near genes and farther genes as priorities with marginal indifference applied to offspring. INSTINCTS a) desire for cooperation (to reduce costs by increasing productivity) b) prohibition on free riding (cheating as defense against parasitism) CONCLUSION Humans engage in cooperation, eschew free riding, and in any act of cooperation, opportunity costs guarantee that all non-productive exchanges (aside from kin selection) are net losses. This is different from biological organisms who do not have the ability to cooperate on production by choosing between opportunity costs. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev
PROPERTARIAN ANALYSIS Let me ‘get all Propertarian’ here. Define properties, axis, actions, Property, and costs. BIOLOGICAL TRUTH TABLE: Ternary : Neutral(Null), Benefit (True), Harm False) RESULTS (In Descending Order) 1) Mutualism: both organisms benefit. TT 2) Commensalism: one benefits without affecting the other. TN 3) Parasitism: one benefits while the other is harmed. TF 4) Amensalism: one is unaffected and the other is harmed NF 5) (?): both are harmed : FF OPPORTUNITY COSTS vs FIXED PRODUCTION/CONSUMPTION The biological model above does not account for opportunity costs from production, where production in a division of labor. We must correct the difference between organisms that engage in production and those that do not. An opportunity cost is the DIFFERENCE between one choice and another. In other words, only mutually productive exchanges are free of loss. ie: there is only one T position in the truth table. Unlike non-producing organisms. Biology is a poor analogy, because production is nearly unique to man. Lets see if I can simplify this even more without losing the central idea. EXAMPLE A and B engage in a mutually productive exchange. Neither A nor B at this moment have a more productive exchange to engage in. This is the maximum yield any action can produce, at zero opportunity cost. Every action OTHER than this one decreases the benefit and increases the opportunity cost from zero. CORRECTED TRUTH TABLE P= Production , ~P = Lost opportunity for production, H=harm 1) Mutualism: both organisms benefit. TT => P1 + P2 = TRUE 2) Commensalism: one benefits without affecting the other. TN=> P1 + ~P2 = FALSE 3) Parasitism: one benefits while the other is harmed. TF=> P1 + ~P2 – H2 = FALSE 4) Amensalism: one is unaffected and the other is harmed NF=>~P1 + ~P2 – H2 = FALSE 5) (?): both are harmed : FF => ~P1 + H1 + ~P2 + H1 = FALSE EXCEPTION: MODIFIED BY KIN SELECTION Genetic Distance: || Humans demonstrate kin selection; treatment of self, near genes and farther genes as priorities with marginal indifference applied to offspring. INSTINCTS a) desire for cooperation (to reduce costs by increasing productivity) b) prohibition on free riding (cheating as defense against parasitism) CONCLUSION Humans engage in cooperation, eschew free riding, and in any act of cooperation, opportunity costs guarantee that all non-productive exchanges (aside from kin selection) are net losses. This is different from biological organisms who do not have the ability to cooperate on production by choosing between opportunity costs. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev
WHY SQUANDER INHERITANCE THROUGH REDISTRIBUTION?
Why should I squander my earnings through redistribution? Why should I squander my savings through redistribution? Why should I squander my culture’s high trust norms through redistribution? And why should I squander my genes through dysgenic redistribution?
If you claim to have rights to your earnings, to your life, and to your property, then why do you only have those rights and not the right to your other forms of capital?
My purpose is to promote my genes, even at the expense of others genes. If we can cooperate while I do that then that’s fine. But if we cannot cooperate while I do that, then there is no point in cooperation. We all demonstrate our time preference. That’s mine. That’s everyone on earth’s preference other than W.E.I.R.D’s – who are demonstrably suicidal.
Squandering your inheritance is suicidal.
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-25 02:57:00 UTC