1) Attack on diversity and equality as a means of preserving our ability to use historical deliberative classical liberal institutions 2) Formulation of alternative institutions that make possible the voluntary cooperation between diverse and unequal people. THE RIGHT IS DOING THE FIRST. I (as a libertarian) AM DOING THE SECOND. THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT IS NOT REACTIONARY – ITS RADICAL.
Category: Politics, Power, and Governance
-
Propertarian Horizontal Class Theory
PART 1: AWARENESS, INFLUENCE, INCENTIVE AND COERCION SPECTRUM OF INFLUENCE (a) Ignorance – none (b) Awareness – speech (c) Influence – speech (d) Incentive – exchange (e) Coercion – violence (f) Enslavement – perpetual violence INCENTIVES Incentives are factors that motivate and influence the actions of individuals. Something that an influencer can use to provide a motive for a person to choose a particular course of action. Organized cooperative activities in a social setting — such as cooperation for the purpose of economic production — depends upon each of the participants having some sort of incentive to behave in the required cooperative fashion. Different societies (and even different organizations within the same society) vary considerably in the nature of the incentive systems upon which they characteristically rely to organize their common projects. — from Johnson (with edits) I. PERSONAL CATEGORIES OF INCENTIVES (Johnson) ——————————————– Incentives may be classified according to a number of different schemes, but one of the more useful classifications subdivides incentives into three general types: MORAL INCENTIVES, COERCIVE INCENTIVES and REMUNERATIVE INCENTIVES. A person has a COERCIVE INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way when it has been made known to him that failure to do so will result in some form of physical aggression being directed at him by other members of the collectivity in the form of inflicting pain or physical harm on him or his loved ones, depriving him of his freedom of movement, or perhaps confiscating or destroying his treasured possessions. A person has a MORAL INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way when he has been taught to believe that it is the “right” or “proper” or “admirable” thing to do. If he behaves as others expect him to, he may expect the approval or even the admiration of the other members of the collectivity and enjoy an enhanced sense of acceptance or self-esteem. If he behaves improperly, he may expect verbal expressions of condemnation, scorn, ridicule or even ostracism from the collectivity, and he may experience unpleasant feelings of guilt, shame or self-condemnation. A person has a REMUNERATIVE INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way if it has been made known to him that doing so will result in some form of material reward he will not otherwise receive. If he behaves as desired, he will receive some specified amount of a valuable good or service (or money with which he can purchase whatever he wishes) in exchange. All known societies employ all three sorts of incentives to at least some degree in order to evoke from its members the necessary degree of cooperation for the society to survive and flourish. However, different societies differ radically in the relative proportions of these different kinds of incentives used within their characteristic mix of incentives. II. POLITICAL: THREE COERCIVE TECHNOLOGIES (Doolittle) ————————————————- The Three Coercive Technologies. 1) FORCE: Tool: Physical Coercion Benefit: Avoidance Benefit Strategic use: Rapid but expensive. “Seize opportunities quickly with a concentrated effort.” 2) WORDS: Tool: Verbal, Moral Coercion Benefit: Ostracization/Inclusion, and Insurance benefit Strategic Use: slow, but inexpensive. “Wait for opportunity by accumulating consensus.” 3) EXCHANGE: Remunerative Coercion With Material Benefit – Strategic use: efficient in cost and time, only if you have the resources. III. STRATEGIC: POWER / THREE TYPES OF POWER —————————————– Power is defined as possessing any of the various means by which to influence the probability of outcomes in a group or polity using one of THE THREE COERCIVE TECHNOLOGIES. Power is the ability to Influence, Coerce or Compel individuals or groups to act more according to one’s wishes than they would without the use of influence, coercion or compelling. There are only three forms of power possible: 1) Populist Power (Religion, Entertainment, Public Intellectuals) vs 2) Procedural Power: Political, Judicial, and Military Power (Soldiers, Judges and Politicians) vs 3) Economic Power (people with wealth either earned or gained through tax appropriation). It is possible and often preferable to combine all three forms of power in order to coerce people most effectively. Conversely, it is possible and preferable to create an institutional framework in politics that restricts the ability to combine different forms of power in an effort to constrain power.
-
Propertarian Horizontal Class Theory
PART 1: AWARENESS, INFLUENCE, INCENTIVE AND COERCION SPECTRUM OF INFLUENCE (a) Ignorance – none (b) Awareness – speech (c) Influence – speech (d) Incentive – exchange (e) Coercion – violence (f) Enslavement – perpetual violence INCENTIVES Incentives are factors that motivate and influence the actions of individuals. Something that an influencer can use to provide a motive for a person to choose a particular course of action. Organized cooperative activities in a social setting — such as cooperation for the purpose of economic production — depends upon each of the participants having some sort of incentive to behave in the required cooperative fashion. Different societies (and even different organizations within the same society) vary considerably in the nature of the incentive systems upon which they characteristically rely to organize their common projects. — from Johnson (with edits) I. PERSONAL CATEGORIES OF INCENTIVES (Johnson) ——————————————– Incentives may be classified according to a number of different schemes, but one of the more useful classifications subdivides incentives into three general types: MORAL INCENTIVES, COERCIVE INCENTIVES and REMUNERATIVE INCENTIVES. A person has a COERCIVE INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way when it has been made known to him that failure to do so will result in some form of physical aggression being directed at him by other members of the collectivity in the form of inflicting pain or physical harm on him or his loved ones, depriving him of his freedom of movement, or perhaps confiscating or destroying his treasured possessions. A person has a MORAL INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way when he has been taught to believe that it is the “right” or “proper” or “admirable” thing to do. If he behaves as others expect him to, he may expect the approval or even the admiration of the other members of the collectivity and enjoy an enhanced sense of acceptance or self-esteem. If he behaves improperly, he may expect verbal expressions of condemnation, scorn, ridicule or even ostracism from the collectivity, and he may experience unpleasant feelings of guilt, shame or self-condemnation. A person has a REMUNERATIVE INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way if it has been made known to him that doing so will result in some form of material reward he will not otherwise receive. If he behaves as desired, he will receive some specified amount of a valuable good or service (or money with which he can purchase whatever he wishes) in exchange. All known societies employ all three sorts of incentives to at least some degree in order to evoke from its members the necessary degree of cooperation for the society to survive and flourish. However, different societies differ radically in the relative proportions of these different kinds of incentives used within their characteristic mix of incentives. II. POLITICAL: THREE COERCIVE TECHNOLOGIES (Doolittle) ————————————————- The Three Coercive Technologies. 1) FORCE: Tool: Physical Coercion Benefit: Avoidance Benefit Strategic use: Rapid but expensive. “Seize opportunities quickly with a concentrated effort.” 2) WORDS: Tool: Verbal, Moral Coercion Benefit: Ostracization/Inclusion, and Insurance benefit Strategic Use: slow, but inexpensive. “Wait for opportunity by accumulating consensus.” 3) EXCHANGE: Remunerative Coercion With Material Benefit – Strategic use: efficient in cost and time, only if you have the resources. III. STRATEGIC: POWER / THREE TYPES OF POWER —————————————– Power is defined as possessing any of the various means by which to influence the probability of outcomes in a group or polity using one of THE THREE COERCIVE TECHNOLOGIES. Power is the ability to Influence, Coerce or Compel individuals or groups to act more according to one’s wishes than they would without the use of influence, coercion or compelling. There are only three forms of power possible: 1) Populist Power (Religion, Entertainment, Public Intellectuals) vs 2) Procedural Power: Political, Judicial, and Military Power (Soldiers, Judges and Politicians) vs 3) Economic Power (people with wealth either earned or gained through tax appropriation). It is possible and often preferable to combine all three forms of power in order to coerce people most effectively. Conversely, it is possible and preferable to create an institutional framework in politics that restricts the ability to combine different forms of power in an effort to constrain power.
-
Why Doesn't It Occur To Us That We Don't Need A Single, Monopoly Government?
I mean, why does that make sense? If the problem is, that each of us wants different distribution of property rights, then why cant we form organizations with different property rights? It’s not like courts don’t adjudicate by property rights anyway. They have to. Our disputes are over behavior in public, our ability to insulate ourselves from certain kinds of public behavior, and to choose to invest in family and relations, or individuals and the commons. Surely interpersonal disputes over property, and insurance disputes over our claims on one another through our government are not required to be the same. The only reason to have a single government, is so that you can oppress and steal. Since it’s not possible to cooperate without personal property rights, and the entire world has finally adopted that position, the question is only what is done with the proceeds of labor and exchange. How much do we get to keep? What is our ‘FEE’ for insurance by our government. But there isn’t really any reason you can’t join your own government, when government is not much more than an insurance company. The only reason for any monopoly is extort from people. That’s what monopolies do. Public OR private.
-
Why Doesn’t It Occur To Us That We Don’t Need A Single, Monopoly Government?
I mean, why does that make sense? If the problem is, that each of us wants different distribution of property rights, then why cant we form organizations with different property rights? It’s not like courts don’t adjudicate by property rights anyway. They have to. Our disputes are over behavior in public, our ability to insulate ourselves from certain kinds of public behavior, and to choose to invest in family and relations, or individuals and the commons. Surely interpersonal disputes over property, and insurance disputes over our claims on one another through our government are not required to be the same. The only reason to have a single government, is so that you can oppress and steal. Since it’s not possible to cooperate without personal property rights, and the entire world has finally adopted that position, the question is only what is done with the proceeds of labor and exchange. How much do we get to keep? What is our ‘FEE’ for insurance by our government. But there isn’t really any reason you can’t join your own government, when government is not much more than an insurance company. The only reason for any monopoly is extort from people. That’s what monopolies do. Public OR private.
-
Why Doesn't It Occur To Us That We Don't Need A Single, Monopoly Government?
I mean, why does that make sense? If the problem is, that each of us wants different distribution of property rights, then why cant we form organizations with different property rights? It’s not like courts don’t adjudicate by property rights anyway. They have to. Our disputes are over behavior in public, our ability to insulate ourselves from certain kinds of public behavior, and to choose to invest in family and relations, or individuals and the commons. Surely interpersonal disputes over property, and insurance disputes over our claims on one another through our government are not required to be the same. The only reason to have a single government, is so that you can oppress and steal. Since it’s not possible to cooperate without personal property rights, and the entire world has finally adopted that position, the question is only what is done with the proceeds of labor and exchange. How much do we get to keep? What is our ‘FEE’ for insurance by our government. But there isn’t really any reason you can’t join your own government, when government is not much more than an insurance company. The only reason for any monopoly is extort from people. That’s what monopolies do. Public OR private.
-
Why Doesn’t It Occur To Us That We Don’t Need A Single, Monopoly Government?
I mean, why does that make sense? If the problem is, that each of us wants different distribution of property rights, then why cant we form organizations with different property rights? It’s not like courts don’t adjudicate by property rights anyway. They have to. Our disputes are over behavior in public, our ability to insulate ourselves from certain kinds of public behavior, and to choose to invest in family and relations, or individuals and the commons. Surely interpersonal disputes over property, and insurance disputes over our claims on one another through our government are not required to be the same. The only reason to have a single government, is so that you can oppress and steal. Since it’s not possible to cooperate without personal property rights, and the entire world has finally adopted that position, the question is only what is done with the proceeds of labor and exchange. How much do we get to keep? What is our ‘FEE’ for insurance by our government. But there isn’t really any reason you can’t join your own government, when government is not much more than an insurance company. The only reason for any monopoly is extort from people. That’s what monopolies do. Public OR private.
-
The Aristocracy Of Everybody, Is A Failure
It isn’t’ just that the majority cannot join the aristocracy, and earn, use and keep property rights. It is that they do not desire to earn, use and keep property rights. People want the benefits of aristocracy but not the effort. They want to be serfs. They want to be taken care of. They don’t want to bear risks. They don’t want to compete, And they aren’t able to. And they demonstrate it at every opportunity. Having empirically proven that the enlightenment effort to bring all of mankind into the aristocracy, has been a catastrophic failure, and at present is threatening western civilization; the question is then, whether we abandon the enlightenment goal of an ‘aristocracy of everybody’, and demand property rights by force of arms once again, as we previously civilized the barbarians of the world, or whether we let ourselves, our civilization and aristocracy die. Not with a roar of triumph. Not with a whimper. But with silent cowardice.
-
The Aristocracy Of Everybody, Is A Failure
It isn’t’ just that the majority cannot join the aristocracy, and earn, use and keep property rights. It is that they do not desire to earn, use and keep property rights. People want the benefits of aristocracy but not the effort. They want to be serfs. They want to be taken care of. They don’t want to bear risks. They don’t want to compete, And they aren’t able to. And they demonstrate it at every opportunity. Having empirically proven that the enlightenment effort to bring all of mankind into the aristocracy, has been a catastrophic failure, and at present is threatening western civilization; the question is then, whether we abandon the enlightenment goal of an ‘aristocracy of everybody’, and demand property rights by force of arms once again, as we previously civilized the barbarians of the world, or whether we let ourselves, our civilization and aristocracy die. Not with a roar of triumph. Not with a whimper. But with silent cowardice.
-
(CORE) The Moral Basis of Red and Blue States?
One’s moral priorities are not a choice, but a justification that has been reduced to an intuition. They must be – reason would be too expensive and too unpredictable for the formation of norms. And those intuitions, which we are in the process of confirming, are both genetically and familially determined. And the structure of the family is determined by the structure of economic production on one hand, and the spectrum of cousin marriage from taboo to expectation, on the other. ->Genetics, Family structure, Production Outbreeding, Norms, Mythology, and Pedagogy. In fact, the only reason we see migration in moral biases is so that individuals can demonstrate wealth, opportunity, and freedom from mercantile and manorial ethics as a form of conspicuous consumption and therefore as a status and mating signal. The origins of our universalism are a side effect of the success of the church in prohibiting cousin marriage and granting property rights to women as a means of breaking up the large landholding families so that the church could more easily and cheaply buy land. America was homogenous in indoctrinating everyone into the Absolute Nuclear Family because immigration displaced extended family networks and the economy in the states prohibited prior loyalties because of available growth. Black americans had an even higher rate of marriage than whites. But the postmodern and feminist programs have undermined the absolute nuclear family using both academia, public intellectuals, policy, and law; because of the introduction of female voters into the work place, and voting pools gave each group new constituent – customers. And it has consistently been the voting pattern of women to expand the welfare state, remove the need for marriage before reproduction, and remove the punitive economic and social norms for single motherhood. At this point voting is determined by single women. And we will soon reach the point where 40% or more of children are born to single mothers, who must singularly support a household, and as such will be poorer than married people with two incomes who support a household. And that is what we see in voting patterns. White married women vote right to keep their family and income. Unmarried and single women and minorities (non-whites, since minority status is rapidly approaching in younger demographics), vote to seek rents and free-riding. I work on the other side of the spectrum from the status-seeking, conspicuously consumptive, moral justification of redistribution as a replacement for marriage. My objective is the preservation of the high trust society. But the high trust society is a product of the absolute nuclear family as the dominant moral influence in American culture. And what we are seeing, is, in 50 years, it’s rapid decline, and the economic polarization, and moral polarization, of the country along those moral lines. We cannot keep the high trust society, and the positive benefits that come from it, without the ANF and the moral code that accompanies it. Or, there is no evidence that such a thing is possible. But, it appears, that at least for a rapidly increasing number of women, this circumstance is superior to the corporation by which we concentrate capital: marriage. Monogamy and paternalism, as Engels reminded us, were innovations that were the result of the development of property during agrarianism and pastoralism. But if women can marry the state, rather than a man, they can restore the tribal order, and bear children while placing the burden of their upkeep on the tribe (state). And that appears to be both normal and preferential. So I think this is a more likely cause of today’s circumstance than leftover anger at the ‘war of northern aggression’, the purpose of which was to prevent the agrarian, export-oriented south from using slavery in the new territory to form a political block, that could encircle the import-oriented north. Reproduction and status are an economy. Norms are an economy. Production is an economy. And moral discourse is verbal warfare over which sector will win which benefits. Cheers
