Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • THE ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYBODY, IS A FAILURE It isnt’ just that the majority canno

    THE ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYBODY, IS A FAILURE

    It isnt’ 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 teh 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.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-15 13:10:00 UTC

  • GOVERNMENT IDIOCY What is, scientifically, the health problem in america? We get

    GOVERNMENT IDIOCY

    What is, scientifically, the health problem in america? We get our sweet from sugar instead of fat. We don’t exercise. We force children to sit rather than exercise.

    Why do we want sugar? Because we are not getting oxygen from exercise (walking and running)

    Why is it such a problem? Because MSG makes you ravenous and eat voraciously, more than you normally would.

    Are trans-fats bad? Oh. Sure. Will the government stop subsidizing corn syrup? Um No. Will the government stop subsidizing sugar? Um. No. Will the government ban MSG as a toxin and a drug? Um, no. Will the government return our children to having (intense) ‘recess’ every couple of hours? Um no.

    Nothing rational at all. Nothing smart out of that city ever.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-15 07:52:00 UTC

  • IDEALISM AND LYING (venting)(contemporary american politics) You know, Bush was

    IDEALISM AND LYING

    (venting)(contemporary american politics)

    You know, Bush was morally driven, idealistic and strategically stupid at times, but he wasn’t a liar. Anything but.

    This guy, Obama, is morally drive, idealist, and strategically stupid, and he’s the laziest, most profligate liar, we’ve ever had in the presidency.

    That is the difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives speak in arational language. Progressives speak in obscurant language, and where they can’t they just basically lie.

    Conservatives protect against incrementalism. Progressives APPLY incrementalism.

    (I don’t like politics, my work is political economy. But this guy, well, he’s just the worst thing to happen to this country since Johnson.)


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-15 06:41:00 UTC

  • We are only truly equal if we are armed

    We are only truly equal if we are armed.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-14 13:22:00 UTC

  • WHY DOESN’T IT OCCUR TO US THAT WE DON’T NEED A SINGLE, MONOPOLY GOVERNMENT? I m

    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.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-14 10:09:00 UTC

  • A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN CLASS THEORY PART 1: AWARENESS, INFLUENCE, INCENT

    A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN 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.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-14 06:09:00 UTC

  • CLINTON, NOW OBAMA The Destruction Of The Officer Corp

    http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/obama-building-compliant-officer-class/FIRST CLINTON, NOW OBAMA

    The Destruction Of The Officer Corp


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-13 07:21:00 UTC

  • THE TWO DARK or ANGLO-COUNTER-ENLIGHTENMENT PROJECTS 1) Attack on diversity and

    THE TWO DARK or ANGLO-COUNTER-ENLIGHTENMENT PROJECTS

    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.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-13 02:27:00 UTC

  • ON ONE POSSIBLE USE FOR VOTING (cross posted for archiving) The only argument th

    ON ONE POSSIBLE USE FOR VOTING

    (cross posted for archiving)

    The only argument that I can prove that includes voting is:

    (a) It is necessary for groups to have people who make decisions on behalf of the group (iron law of oligarchy). However oligarchies form whenever leaders are chosen. Therefore the Athenian tactic of Lottocracy appears to be the only solution that we know of that produces leaders who rotate as do juries, and who cannot easily be coerced (special interests) nor can they obtain power. I cannot be certain this wouldn’t exacerbate the problem of renters versus owners, but the evidence from juries is that no, it actually does the opposite.

    (b) If these lottocratic leaders choose a set of policies, we can each vote our tax dollars for or not-for those initiatives. This has a lot of value in that it requires us to pay taxes in order to vote and influence decisions. This keeps taxes relatively flat, otherwise it puts too much control in the hands of the very wealthy. Now, it’s also possible to start discounting ones contributions at some point but I’m still not sure that’s very good. In other words, say a lot of you pay 100$ and someone else pays 1B$. Now, you should be pretty happy that your initiative gets funded and tat you can use your money on LESSER INITIATIVES.

    I won’t go into all the different games that can be played under this scenario, but they’re reasonably easy to defend against if you can’t legislate involuntary transfers ,or taxes, you can only have a group of people get together to spend money for this one year.

    If a group deals with a single year, and cannot make multi-year commitments, and if their contracts only last a year, then it is very hard for ‘fashionable but bad ideas” to become institutionalized as they do under law and bureaucracy.

    Anyway. If you want voting of any kind, the combination of (a) public intellectuals conducting a debate, rather than politicians (b) lottocratic juries selecting proposed initiatives, (c) and economic democracy for voting.

    I think you’re pretty likely to get to the land of OZ better than any other solution that we have. I mean, parties and politicians have a pretty bad record. And bureaucracies are even worse.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-13 02:23:00 UTC

  • THE REASON YOU USE THE WORD ‘LIBERTY’ AND NOT ‘ARISTOCRACY’? Because you are car

    THE REASON YOU USE THE WORD ‘LIBERTY’ AND NOT ‘ARISTOCRACY’?

    Because you are carrying around the enlightenment error that anyone other than egalitarian aristocracy actually desires liberty. They don’t.

    Aristocracy:

    1) Private Property Rights in exchange for contributing Perpetual Military Service in the defense of private property rights of all who have earned them.

    2) Egalitarianism: anyone willing to also grant rights and contribute service can also gain those rights by contributing that service.

    3) Denial, by promise of violence, of any and all concentration of power sufficient to alter the distribution of property and property rights.

    4) The Absolute Nuclear Family and Prohibition on inbreeding.

    5) Chivalry: Social Status Through Charity, and service as well as through arms.

    6) Decision Making by majority vote of those who have earned property rights.

    Aristocracy is tribal paternity and property rights, open to all who will equally grant them, and defend them.

    LIBERTY EXPRESSED AS A ‘RIGHT’ IS AN ATTEMPT TO GAIN PROPERTY RIGHTS AT A DISCOUNT, AND NOTHING ELSE.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-12 12:02:00 UTC