Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • THROWING CIVILIZATION DOWN DYSGNEIC STAIRCASES One of the unfortunate byproducts

    THROWING CIVILIZATION DOWN DYSGNEIC STAIRCASES

    One of the unfortunate byproducts of developing a significant knowledge of the failures of representative democracy – particularly American first-past-the-post, two-party representative democracy – is that you no longer question whether the whole process is despicable just because you disagree with it. Its just despicable period – agree with outcomes or not.

    We are throwing our civilization down the stairs of cultural Mayan pyramids in sacrifice to an even more ridiculous belief than the appeasement of the gods by human sacrifice.

    At least murdering criminals and captured enemies for entertainment purposes is doing some good in the world. But democracy is just the opposite: it’s reversing five thousand years of genetic pacification.

    The enlightenment was as devastating to politics and philosophy as it was enabling for science and technology.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-11 12:02:00 UTC

  • Consent. You misunderstand. Consent in the justification of policy is not possib

    Consent. You misunderstand. Consent in the justification of policy is not possible by democratic means. See ILoO.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-10 12:23:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641950024730062848

    Reply addressees: @mdavilamartinez

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641666787692548096


    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/641666787692548096

  • Aquire territory: empirically: purchase, revolutionary transfer. defensive conqu

    Aquire territory: empirically: purchase, revolutionary transfer. defensive conquest. Offensive conquest.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-10 12:22:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641949808027127808

    Reply addressees: @mdavilamartinez

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641666787692548096


    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/641666787692548096

  • If government is constructed as a market rather than as a management system, the

    If government is constructed as a market rather than as a management system, then that would not entail coercion?


    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-10 12:15:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641948150425645056

    Reply addressees: @mdavilamartinez

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641669293730492416


    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/641669293730492416

  • That we use monopoly rule (rule of law) differs from monopoly production of comm

    That we use monopoly rule (rule of law) differs from monopoly production of commons (government).


    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-10 12:15:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641947982913519616

    Reply addressees: @mdavilamartinez

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641669293730492416


    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/641669293730492416

  • US INTELLIGENCE REVOLTS AGAINST ADMINISTRATION LAUNDERING OF REPORTS Great artic

    US INTELLIGENCE REVOLTS AGAINST ADMINISTRATION LAUNDERING OF REPORTS

    Great article today on how dozens of US Intelligence analysts are calling the administration ‘liars’ on our ‘successes’ against ISIS / ISIL. The’ve been at it for a year now and they were told maybe they should ‘retire’. They state that they did not speak up during the Bush administration, when poor intelligence reports formed the basis of Bush’s belief in weapons of mass destruction – that we later found didn’t exist. They don’t want this to happen again. So they’re speaking up: it’s not going well against ISIS ISIL. But what is more important (to me) since I know ISIS / ISIL isn’t doing all that badly at all, is that they Intelligence community is taking the heat for the WMD debacle – and showing it. I love that there are ethical people in the world.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-10 06:22:00 UTC

  • Consent is myth. Not possible, nor does it desirable (iron law of oligarchy). Mo

    Consent is myth. Not possible, nor does it desirable (iron law of oligarchy). Monopoly govt and democracy are dead.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-09 17:26:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641663950317322241

    Reply addressees: @mdavilamartinez

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641599949407285253


    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/641599949407285253

  • As far as I know, it looks like: classical liberalism ->Libertarianism ->Ancap –

    As far as I know, it looks like: classical liberalism ->Libertarianism ->Ancap ->NRx ->Propertarianism.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-09 09:32:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641544641758777344

    Reply addressees: @wolfe_fan @mdavilamartinez

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641484405056253953


    IN REPLY TO:

    @sacrorum_rex

    @mdavilamartinez I’ve thought of something I call “post-libertarianism”, something that can incorporate guys from Hoppe to Aristotle

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641484405056253953

  • I WOULD LIKE A POLITICAL ORDER OF EXCHANGES I would like to construct a politica

    I WOULD LIKE A POLITICAL ORDER OF EXCHANGES

    I would like to construct a political order in which we attempted to persuade one another to conduct voluntary exchanges in the construction of commons, rather than a political oder in which we attempt to persuade one another that an abstract bit of moralizing is somehow ‘true’.

    But then that would lead to empirical and scientific government without the need for so many public intellectuals and politicians and that would increase unemployment. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-06 07:57:00 UTC

  • CONVERSATION ON IMMIGRATION (just for record purposes) SAUL: But it’s advantageo

    CONVERSATION ON IMMIGRATION

    (just for record purposes)

    SAUL: But it’s advantageous for a state to have a process that is fast and efficient

    CURT: I think it is an advantage to have the most difficult process possible, with the only expediency education in a technical subject, and experience in the field.

    SAUL:If you have a system under which you can move around goods freely and cheaply while at the same time create great difficulties for moving around labor advanced countries will end up with what they are today: cheap goods and expensive labor. $5k dental visits. Great cars needing a minor repair junk yards. Outsourcing. Curt Doolittle living in Ukraine. And other undesirable consequences.

    CURT: Move capital and institutions to labor and thereby construct norms and institutions, do not move labor to capital and institutions and pay a cost in norms and institutions.

    SAUL: And this is where I think you got it wrong. Moving capital to labor does not create institutions, while moving labor to capital can assimilate labor according to the rules of the culture.

    CURT: That is only true if and only if one does not understand the content of those norms. All that is necessary to transform any country are 10,000 lawyers and an equal number of police. Why are we not exporing both instead of importing underclass dependent labor?

    SAUL: Don’t get me wrong, I wish more countries were like America. But it simply doesn’t work that way.

    CURT: (I kind of doubt that I am wrong since the evidence is overwhelmingly on my side. wink emoticon ) I don’t wish more countries were like america, Canada and Australia: land-privilege is not a particular bit of intelligence. It’s just luck

    (or conquest).

    SAUL: If you propose unachievable conditions for your argument to work it means it doesn’t work.

    CURT: It is not as important to achieve that end as it is to revise existing law such that costs are not born.

    SAUL: Yes 10000 lawyers and police and it would work. But you don’t have 10000 lawyers and police. And America has MILLIONS of immigrants EVERY YEAR. Most will assimilate seamlessly within our lifetime.

    CURT: Truth is truth in the sense that moral statements are objective. America has an overabundance of both and americans are natural judges and police. We have 1 lawyer for every 300 people and making lawyers since 1980 has become an industry. We can manufacture order-making on a grand scale. Because we DO IT ALREADY.

    SAUL: In the private sector. not so much in government

    CURT The probem is not sending 10000 lawyers to Ukraine. It’s Ukraine prohibiting 10000 lawyers and jusges. The single most advantagous thing a low trust country can invest in is american jurists and police.you want to radically change the world that’s how. And there is absolutely no reason why such things cannot be done. if others can send us MILLIONS of peasants, we can send the world THOUSANDS of jurists. You don’t build an airport or a judiciary by placing a help wanted ad, you hire a group of specialists to sytematically do it.

    SAUL: Low trust countries are poor. They don’t invest much, especially in American lawyers. America has a built-in magnet that brings peasants. Ukraine has no magnets to bring American lawyers. Lawyers are human beings, and highly paid ones. You can’t just push them around like cart wagons wherever you want.

    CURT: If ukraine set up a program to do that most developed nations would support it, and we could easily get 10k people here. Easily. We send millions of troops, americans overwhelmingly evangelize care around the world, and a law degree in america is no longer a key to an upper middle class lifestyle.

    SAUL: Besides, we tried it before. It’s called colonization. Not just lawyers but exporting all levels of government. Didn’t really work except that the colonized were a bit less fucked up than they are today.

    CURT: So yes, you can push whomever you want, because 10K legal people is about 1.5-6 billion. a year for 10 years to transform a nation from low trust to high trust. that is a trivial amount of money. Imagine the return on that investment in the establishment of consumer credit alone. They are already replacing all the police. They will soon replace the bureaucracy. Hell, for that amount of money I bet they could get credit since the people could even be paid by external entities. Colonization by common law WORKED EVERYWHERE. Even india.

    SAUL: “If Ukraine set up a program” do you realize that Ukraine will never set up such a program?

    CURT: So now we are to the crux of the matter.

    CURT: OK. Well now we are down to your subjective optionon, not a statement of whether such a program if instituted would be both a cheap (good) investment and would work to transform the country.

    We can import any technology we want.

    SAUL: of course it would work. in principle. provided that conditions that are next to impossible to meet are met

    CURT: OK. Well, then how do we raise the cost of NOT doing it?

    I mean, how could Ukraine refuse if with that came nearly unlimited banking and credit?


    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-05 08:49:00 UTC