AMERICAN POLICY IN A NUTSHELL [A]merican policy (frustratingly) demonstrates rather than explicitly states, that you may have any government you willingly elect. But if you willingly elect a government that does not adhere to the charter of human rights both internally and externally; or if that government acts as a bad citizen in the network of finance and trade, then you and your government will be punished for the choice of the government you have elected, and you will be punished repeatedly and severely until you choose to elect a government that respects the charter of human rights and acts as a good citizen in the network of finance and trade. They only talk about the carrot, but not the stick. They don’t do much distribution of carrots, but they distribute sticks all-the-live-long day. That paragraph should be required as a warning label on all US diplomats, messages, goods, commercials, movies, passports, tickets, whatever we export. Just like we require warnings on cigarettes. [T]he USA is not a country. It’s a corporation. That corporation runs an empire. That empire controls the finance and trade system worldwide. We are all consumers of that system. In the main, it’s a better system than most that have existed. But the quality of that system is declining rapidly.
Category: Politics, Power, and Governance
-
American Policy In A Nutshell : Talking About The Carrot of Choice, But Not The Stick of Accountability
AMERICAN POLICY IN A NUTSHELL [A]merican policy (frustratingly) demonstrates rather than explicitly states, that you may have any government you willingly elect. But if you willingly elect a government that does not adhere to the charter of human rights both internally and externally; or if that government acts as a bad citizen in the network of finance and trade, then you and your government will be punished for the choice of the government you have elected, and you will be punished repeatedly and severely until you choose to elect a government that respects the charter of human rights and acts as a good citizen in the network of finance and trade. They only talk about the carrot, but not the stick. They don’t do much distribution of carrots, but they distribute sticks all-the-live-long day. That paragraph should be required as a warning label on all US diplomats, messages, goods, commercials, movies, passports, tickets, whatever we export. Just like we require warnings on cigarettes. [T]he USA is not a country. It’s a corporation. That corporation runs an empire. That empire controls the finance and trade system worldwide. We are all consumers of that system. In the main, it’s a better system than most that have existed. But the quality of that system is declining rapidly.
-
Strange thought. But can I use ethical realism to break the conflict between whi
Strange thought. But can I use ethical realism to break the conflict between whites and jews? Because that’s a pretty amazingly competitive polity. If we can take away the ability to violate high trust norms, can we unite the whites and the jews – as we almost did prior to the wars?
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-15 06:18:00 UTC
-
Necessary, Preferential, and Luxury Properties of Government
A) NECESSARY PROPERTIES The NECESSARY properties of of a government are 1) provide a means of resolving differences without the use of violence (ie: to create a monopoly of violence within a geography.) 2) To provide a means of resolving differences requires a definition of property rights. 3) To prohibit alternative definitions of property rights from being imposed by force, theft or fraud, (or immigration.) These are the minimum properties of a government. B ) ADVANTAGEOUS PROPERTIES In addition to these properties, it may also be possible for a group of people to afford to also have government engage in the following: 4) To provide a means of investing in commons (human and physical infrastructure) by prohibiting free-riding, privatization, and competition when investing in commons. 5) To provide a means of cooperation between classes where privatization, free riding, rent seeking and competition prevent cooperation between classes. 6) To reduce both transaction costs and fraud by implementing weights, measures and currency. 7) To perform as an insurer of last resort against catastrophes. These are advantageous properties of government. C) PROPERTIES THAT ARE LUXURIES In addition to these properties, it may be possible for a group of people to afford to also have the government engage in the following LUXURIES: 8 ) Redistribution of all kinds, both in services, and in direct payments. 9) Inter-temporal redistribution from young to old, rather than saving and lending from old to young. (But this is very fragile.) These are LUXURIES that can be provided by some governments under rare circumstances in exceptional periods of time, where malthusian and group selection problems have been temporarily held at bay by technological innovation. The government is not the source of the ‘good things’. The courts, under the common law and property rights is the source of ‘good things’. The government we have today, has destroyed the common law, the rule of law, and created both corporatism and socialism. And we now suffer between two factions that try to control the government for corporatist or socialist means.
-
Necessary, Preferential, and Luxury Properties of Government
A) NECESSARY PROPERTIES The NECESSARY properties of of a government are 1) provide a means of resolving differences without the use of violence (ie: to create a monopoly of violence within a geography.) 2) To provide a means of resolving differences requires a definition of property rights. 3) To prohibit alternative definitions of property rights from being imposed by force, theft or fraud, (or immigration.) These are the minimum properties of a government. B ) ADVANTAGEOUS PROPERTIES In addition to these properties, it may also be possible for a group of people to afford to also have government engage in the following: 4) To provide a means of investing in commons (human and physical infrastructure) by prohibiting free-riding, privatization, and competition when investing in commons. 5) To provide a means of cooperation between classes where privatization, free riding, rent seeking and competition prevent cooperation between classes. 6) To reduce both transaction costs and fraud by implementing weights, measures and currency. 7) To perform as an insurer of last resort against catastrophes. These are advantageous properties of government. C) PROPERTIES THAT ARE LUXURIES In addition to these properties, it may be possible for a group of people to afford to also have the government engage in the following LUXURIES: 8 ) Redistribution of all kinds, both in services, and in direct payments. 9) Inter-temporal redistribution from young to old, rather than saving and lending from old to young. (But this is very fragile.) These are LUXURIES that can be provided by some governments under rare circumstances in exceptional periods of time, where malthusian and group selection problems have been temporarily held at bay by technological innovation. The government is not the source of the ‘good things’. The courts, under the common law and property rights is the source of ‘good things’. The government we have today, has destroyed the common law, the rule of law, and created both corporatism and socialism. And we now suffer between two factions that try to control the government for corporatist or socialist means.
-
The Assumptions of ‘Liberalism’ (And Libertarianism)
“Libertarianism is applied autism.” – Steve Sailer For some reason this phrase affected me pretty deeply. UNIVERSAL ENFRANCHISEMENT A GIVEN? Libertarianism, as I practice it, and as I believe Mises and Hayek practiced their ‘liberalism’ (universal enfranchisement), is the scientific pursuit of political theory using the system of measurement we call economics, and the objective of material prosperity. Which was of course, the great achievement of the innovations of capitalism, empiricism (of which capitalism is a member) and the harnessing fossil fuels. Or rather, These philosophers were engaged in an attempt to define scientific political theory under the ASSUMPTION of universal enfranchisement. I still practice my philosophical inquiry under that same assumption of universal enfranchisement – the prohibition on the deprivation of the choice of “cooperation or boycott” from others. But once you assume some justification for not depriving others of choice, (a) we run into the problem of diverse interests and desires so that we now need a means of choosing between preferences, and the DEMONSTRATED preference of everyone is greater prosperity, for the simple reason that prosperity increases everyone’s choices and greatly reduces the cost of ANY choice. PRIMACY OF PROSPERITY – ECONOMICS AND COOPERATION So, the second assumption of “liberalism” is the priority of economic good. That is, that cooperation facilitates production of prosperity. MERITOCRACY OR NOT? The third assumption of “liberalism” is natural rotation (Meritocracy). But like prices and contracts, humans do not willingly rotate downward if there is any impact upon their status. In fact, people place higher value on their status than almost any other asset that they have. LIBERTY OR CONSUMPTION? The fourth assumption of ‘liberalism’ is that humans desire liberty, rather than that they desire choice and consumption. When in fact, only libertarians and conservatives demonstrate a preference for liberty, and almost all other humans on the planet do not. They demonstrate ONLY a preference for consumption. OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO LIBERTARIANISM EXIST 0) Libertarianism (full enfranchisement, with meritocratic rotation) 1) Select enfranchisement (Pre-enlightenment European, and early American with selective rotation) 2) Totalitarian humanism (Chinese Corporatism and European Corporatist models ceremonial enfranchisement ) 3) Totalitarianism (pre-communist Chinese and most empire and state models) Libertarians are unique. Conservatives are unique. Most of the world does not want to engage in trial and error. They can’t. It’s too hard for them. Then again, why does universal enfranchisement imply monopoly? Why can’t we construct many small states some of which practice communal property and others that practice private property and everything in between? Because the statists could not profit from us? Because that is how humans MUST function precisely because we are not equal in ability whatsoever. A large organization has only so many people at the top. In many small organizations there are only so may people at the top, but there are many more organizations for people to reach the top of. Just as companies and economies have spread out into multiple flexible organizations, so must governments. That is the obvious conclusion: size allows you to conduct war and that is all. As such, if someone attempts to construct a scale empire, they have no other reason than warfare to do so. Our goal then should be to destroy large states so that war is nearly impossible to conduct.
-
The Assumptions of 'Liberalism' (And Libertarianism)
“Libertarianism is applied autism.” – Steve Sailer For some reason this phrase affected me pretty deeply. UNIVERSAL ENFRANCHISEMENT A GIVEN? Libertarianism, as I practice it, and as I believe Mises and Hayek practiced their ‘liberalism’ (universal enfranchisement), is the scientific pursuit of political theory using the system of measurement we call economics, and the objective of material prosperity. Which was of course, the great achievement of the innovations of capitalism, empiricism (of which capitalism is a member) and the harnessing fossil fuels. Or rather, These philosophers were engaged in an attempt to define scientific political theory under the ASSUMPTION of universal enfranchisement. I still practice my philosophical inquiry under that same assumption of universal enfranchisement – the prohibition on the deprivation of the choice of “cooperation or boycott” from others. But once you assume some justification for not depriving others of choice, (a) we run into the problem of diverse interests and desires so that we now need a means of choosing between preferences, and the DEMONSTRATED preference of everyone is greater prosperity, for the simple reason that prosperity increases everyone’s choices and greatly reduces the cost of ANY choice. PRIMACY OF PROSPERITY – ECONOMICS AND COOPERATION So, the second assumption of “liberalism” is the priority of economic good. That is, that cooperation facilitates production of prosperity. MERITOCRACY OR NOT? The third assumption of “liberalism” is natural rotation (Meritocracy). But like prices and contracts, humans do not willingly rotate downward if there is any impact upon their status. In fact, people place higher value on their status than almost any other asset that they have. LIBERTY OR CONSUMPTION? The fourth assumption of ‘liberalism’ is that humans desire liberty, rather than that they desire choice and consumption. When in fact, only libertarians and conservatives demonstrate a preference for liberty, and almost all other humans on the planet do not. They demonstrate ONLY a preference for consumption. OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO LIBERTARIANISM EXIST 0) Libertarianism (full enfranchisement, with meritocratic rotation) 1) Select enfranchisement (Pre-enlightenment European, and early American with selective rotation) 2) Totalitarian humanism (Chinese Corporatism and European Corporatist models ceremonial enfranchisement ) 3) Totalitarianism (pre-communist Chinese and most empire and state models) Libertarians are unique. Conservatives are unique. Most of the world does not want to engage in trial and error. They can’t. It’s too hard for them. Then again, why does universal enfranchisement imply monopoly? Why can’t we construct many small states some of which practice communal property and others that practice private property and everything in between? Because the statists could not profit from us? Because that is how humans MUST function precisely because we are not equal in ability whatsoever. A large organization has only so many people at the top. In many small organizations there are only so may people at the top, but there are many more organizations for people to reach the top of. Just as companies and economies have spread out into multiple flexible organizations, so must governments. That is the obvious conclusion: size allows you to conduct war and that is all. As such, if someone attempts to construct a scale empire, they have no other reason than warfare to do so. Our goal then should be to destroy large states so that war is nearly impossible to conduct.
-
The Assumptions of 'Liberalism' (And Libertarianism)
“Libertarianism is applied autism.” – Steve Sailer For some reason this phrase affected me pretty deeply. UNIVERSAL ENFRANCHISEMENT A GIVEN? Libertarianism, as I practice it, and as I believe Mises and Hayek practiced their ‘liberalism’ (universal enfranchisement), is the scientific pursuit of political theory using the system of measurement we call economics, and the objective of material prosperity. Which was of course, the great achievement of the innovations of capitalism, empiricism (of which capitalism is a member) and the harnessing fossil fuels. Or rather, These philosophers were engaged in an attempt to define scientific political theory under the ASSUMPTION of universal enfranchisement. I still practice my philosophical inquiry under that same assumption of universal enfranchisement – the prohibition on the deprivation of the choice of “cooperation or boycott” from others. But once you assume some justification for not depriving others of choice, (a) we run into the problem of diverse interests and desires so that we now need a means of choosing between preferences, and the DEMONSTRATED preference of everyone is greater prosperity, for the simple reason that prosperity increases everyone’s choices and greatly reduces the cost of ANY choice. PRIMACY OF PROSPERITY – ECONOMICS AND COOPERATION So, the second assumption of “liberalism” is the priority of economic good. That is, that cooperation facilitates production of prosperity. MERITOCRACY OR NOT? The third assumption of “liberalism” is natural rotation (Meritocracy). But like prices and contracts, humans do not willingly rotate downward if there is any impact upon their status. In fact, people place higher value on their status than almost any other asset that they have. LIBERTY OR CONSUMPTION? The fourth assumption of ‘liberalism’ is that humans desire liberty, rather than that they desire choice and consumption. When in fact, only libertarians and conservatives demonstrate a preference for liberty, and almost all other humans on the planet do not. They demonstrate ONLY a preference for consumption. OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO LIBERTARIANISM EXIST 0) Libertarianism (full enfranchisement, with meritocratic rotation) 1) Select enfranchisement (Pre-enlightenment European, and early American with selective rotation) 2) Totalitarian humanism (Chinese Corporatism and European Corporatist models ceremonial enfranchisement ) 3) Totalitarianism (pre-communist Chinese and most empire and state models) Libertarians are unique. Conservatives are unique. Most of the world does not want to engage in trial and error. They can’t. It’s too hard for them. Then again, why does universal enfranchisement imply monopoly? Why can’t we construct many small states some of which practice communal property and others that practice private property and everything in between? Because the statists could not profit from us? Because that is how humans MUST function precisely because we are not equal in ability whatsoever. A large organization has only so many people at the top. In many small organizations there are only so may people at the top, but there are many more organizations for people to reach the top of. Just as companies and economies have spread out into multiple flexible organizations, so must governments. That is the obvious conclusion: size allows you to conduct war and that is all. As such, if someone attempts to construct a scale empire, they have no other reason than warfare to do so. Our goal then should be to destroy large states so that war is nearly impossible to conduct.
-
The Assumptions of ‘Liberalism’ (And Libertarianism)
“Libertarianism is applied autism.” – Steve Sailer For some reason this phrase affected me pretty deeply. UNIVERSAL ENFRANCHISEMENT A GIVEN? Libertarianism, as I practice it, and as I believe Mises and Hayek practiced their ‘liberalism’ (universal enfranchisement), is the scientific pursuit of political theory using the system of measurement we call economics, and the objective of material prosperity. Which was of course, the great achievement of the innovations of capitalism, empiricism (of which capitalism is a member) and the harnessing fossil fuels. Or rather, These philosophers were engaged in an attempt to define scientific political theory under the ASSUMPTION of universal enfranchisement. I still practice my philosophical inquiry under that same assumption of universal enfranchisement – the prohibition on the deprivation of the choice of “cooperation or boycott” from others. But once you assume some justification for not depriving others of choice, (a) we run into the problem of diverse interests and desires so that we now need a means of choosing between preferences, and the DEMONSTRATED preference of everyone is greater prosperity, for the simple reason that prosperity increases everyone’s choices and greatly reduces the cost of ANY choice. PRIMACY OF PROSPERITY – ECONOMICS AND COOPERATION So, the second assumption of “liberalism” is the priority of economic good. That is, that cooperation facilitates production of prosperity. MERITOCRACY OR NOT? The third assumption of “liberalism” is natural rotation (Meritocracy). But like prices and contracts, humans do not willingly rotate downward if there is any impact upon their status. In fact, people place higher value on their status than almost any other asset that they have. LIBERTY OR CONSUMPTION? The fourth assumption of ‘liberalism’ is that humans desire liberty, rather than that they desire choice and consumption. When in fact, only libertarians and conservatives demonstrate a preference for liberty, and almost all other humans on the planet do not. They demonstrate ONLY a preference for consumption. OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO LIBERTARIANISM EXIST 0) Libertarianism (full enfranchisement, with meritocratic rotation) 1) Select enfranchisement (Pre-enlightenment European, and early American with selective rotation) 2) Totalitarian humanism (Chinese Corporatism and European Corporatist models ceremonial enfranchisement ) 3) Totalitarianism (pre-communist Chinese and most empire and state models) Libertarians are unique. Conservatives are unique. Most of the world does not want to engage in trial and error. They can’t. It’s too hard for them. Then again, why does universal enfranchisement imply monopoly? Why can’t we construct many small states some of which practice communal property and others that practice private property and everything in between? Because the statists could not profit from us? Because that is how humans MUST function precisely because we are not equal in ability whatsoever. A large organization has only so many people at the top. In many small organizations there are only so may people at the top, but there are many more organizations for people to reach the top of. Just as companies and economies have spread out into multiple flexible organizations, so must governments. That is the obvious conclusion: size allows you to conduct war and that is all. As such, if someone attempts to construct a scale empire, they have no other reason than warfare to do so. Our goal then should be to destroy large states so that war is nearly impossible to conduct.
-
Aristocratic Egalitarian "High Trust" Ethics vs Rothbardian "Ghetto" Ethics
ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN “HIGH TRUST” ETHICS VS ROTHBARDIAN “GHETTO” ETHICS In the effort to suppress the state via arguments to anarchy the previous generations of libertarians failed to identify the cause of private property, and the differences between the high trust private property practiced by outbred homogenous ANF northern europeans, and the low trust inbred heterogeneous other cultures.
