—“There is no real way to “take violence off the table” but only a borrowing of peace from the future. Eventually any reality which people seek to avoid comes back on them – and with interest.”— Noah J Revoy
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-30 20:42:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1001926956613554176
—“Only those capable of violence can offer peace, and only to others capable of violence (reciprocity). Everyone else is just mislabeling forbearance.”—Luke Weinhagen
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-30 18:38:00 UTC
You wanna priest to tell you comforting half truths, then go ask one. I’m a judge and prosecutor of natural law. Truth and reciprocity aren’t comforting. They just are decidable. And if you don’t like those decisions you have to ask why you’re trying to free ride, seek rents, or steal from others.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-29 09:09:00 UTC
But that says nothing about the study of social science and the minimization of frictions in cooperation without violating rule of law(non discretion), natural law(reciprocity), morality(non-externalization of costs), truth(non distortion of information), meritocracy (eugenics).
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-28 19:50:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1001189050710151173
Reply addressees: @Lord_Keynes2 @Voltaire1778__8 @Septeus7 @Slysneak @LambsRegret @GeolibGeorge @jappleby123 @Noahpinion
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1000822029451280384
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/1000822029451280384
Really?Answer three questions: (a)Are all choices rational, or are people capable of irrational choice? (b)Are all conflicts decidable by tests of reciprocity or are there any conflicts not so decidable? (c)Have all legal systems converged on reciprocity or have any failed to?
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-27 19:11:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1000816774688968705
Reply addressees: @Lord_Keynes2
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1000812022441771008
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/1000812022441771008
DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF AN AUSTRIAN?
WELL, AUSTRIAN ECON IS THE CLOSEST TO NATURAL LAW
I have evolved (by accident) into a specialist in natural law (reciprocity) and rule of law (non-discretion), resulting in markets(voluntary cooperation) in all walks of life. Part of this specialization is an extraordinarily precise criteria for truthful speech, the result of which is completing the scientific method.
So since Austrian econ is the closest possible model to rule of law, I tend to consider myself somewhere between austrian and chicago, with a bias to austrian in law, and a bias toward chicago in the production of commons.
Austrian econ is an appropriated term. Because there are two branches : Mengerian, which is fully integrated into mainstream thought, and Misesian, which is not.
I’ve written exhaustively about the failures of Mises and Rothbard even if Mises came very close to one of the most important discoveries in economic history. He calls this positivist (justificationary) discipline ‘praxeology’, but this is a pseudoscientific claim.
If however, we combine mises with popper (falsificationism), and mathematical intuitionism and the operationalist movement in physics, you realize that mises tried to make a positive axiomatic logic out of economics, rather than realize he had discovered falsificationism in economics. And then rothbard came along and ruined Mises reputation so badly that we can’t rescue it.
To say you are an Austrian today probably means nothing other than that you seek to improve institutions of cooperation, and are rather firm in the belief that the business cycle must be allowed to self correct regularly or it will only increase and expand corrections until a ‘collapse’.
To be a ‘praxeologist’ in the positivist stense requires you’re a bit of an idiot – because in fact, economic phenomenon at any scale must eventually be discovered empirically. On the other hand, as a falsificationist, to say ‘If I can’t construct that observed phenomenon from rational human choices then it can’t be true” means you’ve learned the lesson that Mises inarticulately tried to teach us.
And if you study both austrian econ and the law you understand that mises and rothbard (and hoppe) were confused, in that mainstream econ violates natural law (reciprocity), spends down accumulated capital of the most precious categories to increase population that overloads the earth, and is objectively immoral by ever standard.
As far as I know Austrian Econ today favors the study of behavior, entrepreneurship(individual choice), political economy(institutional impact on economies), and preservation of rule of law over rule by discretion. So the state is the provider of cooperative institutions.
As far as I know Chicago tends to maintain these but emphasize monetary policy moreso – with the state as insurer of last resort.
As far as I know Saltwater (Mainstream) tends to seek to maximize consumption at the expense of rule of law – replacing it with rule by discretion, with the state as the direct manipulator of the economy.
These are actually moral predispositions which is why people self select into these specializations.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-27 14:49:00 UTC
—“Do Men have a duty of violence or privilege of guardianship?”—Brian Barr
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 18:02:00 UTC
–“Do you consider yourself an Austrian?”–
I have evolved (by accident) into a specialist in natural law (reciprocity) and rule of law (non-discretion), resulting in markets(voluntary cooperation) in all walks of life. Part of this specialization is an extraordinarily precise criteria for truthful speech, the result of which is completing the scientific method.
So since Austrian econ is the closest possible model to rule of law, I tend to consider myself somewhere between austrian and chicago, with a bias probably toward chicago.
Austrian econ is an appropriated term. Because there are two branches : Mengerian, which is fully integrated into mainstream thought, and Misesian, which is not.
I’ve written exhaustively about the failures of Mises and Rothbard in particular even if Mises came very close to one of the most important discoveries in economic history.
He calls this positivist (justificationary) discipline ‘praxeology’, but this is pseudoscientific. If you however, combine mises with popper (falsificationism), and mathematical intuitionism and the operationalist movement in physics, you realize that mises tried to make a positive axiomatic logic out of economics, rather than realize he had discovered falsificationism in economics. And then rothbard came along and ruined Mises reputation so badly that we can’t rescue it.
To say you are an Austrian today probably means nothing other than that you seek to improve institutions of cooperation, and are rather firm in the belief that the business cycle must be allowed to self correct regularly or it will only increase and expand corrections until a ‘collapse’.
To be a ‘praxeologist’ in the positivist stense requires you’re a bit of an idiot – because in fact, economic phenomenon at any scale must eventually be discovered empirically. On the other hand, as a falsificationist, to say ‘If I can’t construct that phenomenon from rational human choices then it can’t be true” means you’ve learned the lesson that Mises inarticulately tried to teach us.
As far as I know Austrian Econ today favors the study of behavior, entrepreneurship(individual choice), political economy(institutional impact on economies), and preservation of rule of law over rule by discretion. So the state is the provider of cooperative institutions.
As far as I know Chicago tends to maintain these but emphasize monetary policy moreso – with the state as insurer of last resort.
As far as I know Saltwater (Mainstream) tends to seek to maximize consumption at the expense of rule of law – replacing it with rule by discretion, with the state as the direct manipulator of the economy.
These are actually moral predispositions which is why people self select into these specializations.
I’m a scientist in that discipline we call law (cooperation). And as such I favor the austrian and chicago methods of action over the saltwater.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 18:00:00 UTC