Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • NOTES ON THE LIBERTARIAN REFORMATION 1) Our generation’s challenge is not social

    NOTES ON THE LIBERTARIAN REFORMATION

    1) Our generation’s challenge is not socialism, it’s the state religion of anti-scientific, contra-rational postmodernism. (The religion of progressivism.) The dogma, literature, and ideological bias of the libertarian movement is a generation behind.

    2) Government per se, is not a ‘bad’. What’s ‘bad’ are the corporeal state, monopoly, bureaucracy, majority rule, and legislative law. When we fail to make this distinction we are in fact, ‘wrong’. A government that consists of a monopolistically articulated set of property rights and the terms of dispute resolution, operating under the common law, and a group of people whose purpose is to facilitate investments in the commons by voluntary contract, but who cannot make legislative law, is in fact, a government. It may not be necessary government among people with homogenous preferences and beliefs. But it is somewhere between necessary and beneficial government for people with heterogeneous preferences and beliefs. It is however, not a bad government.

    3) Property is unnatural to man. Tribal human settlement is matrilineal, egalitarian, malthusian and poor. Mate selection is determined by sexual favors within the group, and raiding, capturing and killing for women outside the group whenever there was a shortage of women.

    4) Property rights and paternalism were an innovation made possible by the domestication of animals and the ability of males to accumulate wealth outside of the matrilineal order. Property rather than sexual favors was such an advantage that it inverted the relationship between the sexes and determined mate selection. (The feminists are correct.)

    5) Property rights were created by a minority who granted equality of property rights to one another in exchange for service in warfare. The source of property rights is the organized application of violence to create those property rights. Because property rights are the desire of the minority. However, property rights created such an increase in prosperity and consumption that others sought to join the ranks of property owners.

    6) The redistributive state that was voted into power by women, has reversed the innovation of private property and in concert with feminists, is eroding the nuclear family, and the male ability to collect property. The institutions of marriage, nuclear family, and private property cannot survive when a democratic majority can deprive men of private property rights, and their ability to control mating and reproduction.

    7 ) Rothbardian Libertarian ethics are ‘insufficient’. The high trust society forbids involuntary transfers by externality and asymmetry of information, and enforces this demand with a requirement for warranty. The ethics of the high trust society forbid all involuntary transfers except through competition in the market.

    8 ) Rothbardian ethics are wrong (and bad): The market incentives alone are not high enough to overcome corruption, and create the high trust society without additional moral prohibitions: norms are a commons. They are property. Conservatives are right.

    9 ) Libertarians do not exist in sufficient numbers. And it is not possible to enfranchise the conservatives (classical liberals) with Rothbardian ‘ghetto’ ethics. Without conservatives, who have a broader set of moral biases, the libertarian bias is morally objectionable to too large a population, and libertarians are too small in number to accumulate and hold the power necessary to determine property rights in a geography. It’s important to understand that rothbardian ethics are ‘wrong’ because they are insufficient.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-08 08:07:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIANISM: SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL. 1) “Do not confuse absence of volatility wit

    LIBERTARIANISM: SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL.

    1) “Do not confuse absence of volatility with absence of risk.”

    2) “Avoid optimization; learn to love redundancy. … Redundancy (in terms of having savings and cash under the mattress) is the opposite of debt. … Overspecialization also is not a great idea.”

    3) “What is fragile should break early, while it’s still small. Nothing should ever become too big to fail.” …. “Compensate complexity with simplicity.”

    4) “No socialization of losses and privatization of gains”…..”No incentives without disincentives: capitalism is about rewards and punishments, not just rewards.”

    5) “[Build] an economic life closer to our biological environment: smaller firms, a richer ecology, no speculative leverage — a world in which entrepreneurs, not bankers, take the risks, and in which companies are born and die every day without making the news.”

    LIBERTARIANISM IS LOVE OF THE SMALL: ITS JUST MATH.

    (All quotes from Nassim Taleb’s Black Swan)


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-07 11:02:00 UTC

  • HIGGS’ MORALIZING – PULL OUT OF EUROPE I think the answer to this problem for bo

    http://blog.independent.org/2013/06/30/why-fight-for-king-and-country/CONTRA HIGGS’ MORALIZING – PULL OUT OF EUROPE

    I think the answer to this problem for both sides is to pull the US military, state and intelligence organizations from Europe entirely so that European defense, international relations, and the stabilization of commodity prices is left to the management of Europeans. It’s not really necessary for Americans to stabilize the price of oil, or any other commodity, now that we’re close to being energy independent. And our dollar will remain the currency of last resort even more durably if we drop our international intrigues.

    That would stop the American cultural necessity for jingoism in order to preserve the cultural will to pay for the necessity that we police the world for largely European convenience. And it would allow us to save three quarters of our military expenditures, and focus our efforts on domestic reality rather than ideological propagation as a means of further discounting the cost of our policing. I’d be nice to have a domestic government rather than an internationally focused one actually.

    Conversely, it would force holier-than-thou Europeans to do all the nonsense that Americans now do and also to pay for it. Which would require the re-nationalization of european propagandism in order to motivate the already heavily taxed population to pay for.

    I’m sorry that you don’t like being a client state of Rome dear Athens-after-the-overreach, but without us you’ll be a client state of ether German political and economic power and cultural discipline, or Russian resource and military power.

    It probably doesn’t occur to silly people on the other side of the pond that it’s because Britain was so bad at containing its self interest, rent seeking, politics and policies that Americans ended up with the entire Empire in our lap, and had to militarize our entire country quite against our naturally isolationist inclination and will.

    (…)

    It is profoundly naive to think that nations have the degree of nationalism that they want to rather than the level of nationalism that they need to. People are too practical to waste their energy.

    Glass houses and all that.

    (NOTE: I attack my country all day long. I want it split up. But the arrogance of European criticism sometimes irritates the hell out of me – especially from the Brits. We dont directly charge Europe for providing its military, state, and trade policing services directly. We do it through the petro dollar. But Europe now has it’s Euro, and oil can be bought in Euros. So lets pull the USA out of Europe, save the money, and let europeans do their own dirty work so that they don’t have the privilege of insulting americans for it. Looking a gift-horse in the mouth and all. )


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-02 21:44:00 UTC

  • WISH OUR MILITARY WAS THIS VIRTUOUS

    http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-egypt-military-ultimatum-20130701,0,7120476.storyI WISH OUR MILITARY WAS THIS VIRTUOUS


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-01 15:48:00 UTC

  • Libertarianism and Justificationism

    [A]ny political system wich seeks to implement involuntary transfers must be based upon justification. Any political system which seeks to implement voluntary transfers need not be based upon justification. But this is an INSUFFICIENT ANSWER to the problem. This sounds quite simple. However, the first problem is not voluntary versus involuntary transfer, but the distribution of control between the monopoly of private (several) property, and the prohibition on monopoly of control under the shareholder relations of common property (the commons) – and the difficult means by which commons are privatized without the conduct of free riding, profiting from interference, profiting from fraud by omission, profit from fraud, profit from privatization of the commons, profiting from rent seeking, from organizing for the purpose of extraction (taxes) and corruption, takings and war. It is true that private property improves both incentives and calculation, and reduces the friction, but the problem is that even at that point, the system of property rights is in fact a shareholder agreement, and there are very different moral arguments over the distribution of the proceeds produced by the corporation and its members. This question is not trivial, especially with the introduction of women into the voting pool, since women’s biological moral code, demonstrated by their voting pattern, is by definition one of rent seeking and totalitarian equality. Their moral code is not ‘wrong’ for them. It is very wrong for productive males. These problems are not trivial. And libertarianism’s argument that LIBERTY is a universal desire has been demonstrated to be false. CONSUMPTION has been demonstrated to be a universal desire. But not Liberty. [A]ll moral codes and the philosophies that justify them are in fact, class philosophies. It is illogical for one to adopt a philosophy that is a disadvantage to one and an advantage to another – especially if that advantage plays out over the long rather than the short run. I hope this was more helpful than confusing.

  • IMMIGRATION EFFECTS WORLDWIDE

    http://www.voxeu.org/article/global-view-cross-border-migrationON IMMIGRATION EFFECTS WORLDWIDE


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-01 05:41:00 UTC

  • OF THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT Nice piece. Pretty accurate. Shows most of the major p

    http://habitableworlds.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/visualizing-the-dark-enlightenment-v-1-5/MAP OF THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT

    Nice piece. Pretty accurate. Shows most of the major players organized by interest area.

    I should probably be on this list, but since I don’t COMPLAIN, but instead try to solve the PROBLEM of heterogeneous political cooperation post-majority rule, I guess that I don’t qualify. 🙂

    But whining doesn’t solve anything. Any lazy oaf can complain. Any romantic can wish for the past. Any fool can fail to see the change that information and industrial prosperity and consumer capitalism have forced into our social economic and political relations. Any idiot can advocate that his preferred political model is the optimum political model for all others – that there is a ‘common good’ where we have common ends, instead of common goods that allow us to cooperate on means despite having conflicting ends.

    So yes. I’m jealous. 🙂

    (PS: Tongue in cheek: the fact that I’m whining here is an act of self deprecating humor… ok? I’m not that dim. 🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2013-06-27 03:56:00 UTC

  • FIVE STRATFOR PREDICTIONS I follow STRATFOR pretty closely. They rely very heavi

    FIVE STRATFOR PREDICTIONS

    I follow STRATFOR pretty closely. They rely very heavily on geo-strategy and demographics rather than some absurd idealism, or pure economics to make predictive trends. (Economics are more derivative than causal when compared to geography and demographics.)

    1) “Turkey will emerge as Iran weakens”

    Well Iran is an economic basket case, so this is better stated as “Turkey is Emerging as Iran Weakens” and Turkey is a country that’s the most sane in the Muslim world. While we probably all want a strong Turkey and a strong Russia, the muslim world needs a credible core state that can hold other states accountable for their actions within the civilization. I just have a hard time seeing turkey become the core state, even though it will emerge as the most important economic power. That culture is still too primitive and mired in familialism to join the first world.

    2) “Russia will use economic tools to build influence in Eastern Europe”

    Well, what do you mean ‘will’? Russia owns big industry in Ukraine through the extensive use of credit, and Russia controls the flow of energy. So either western and Eastern Ukraine split, or Ukraine will have to act as a client state of Russia in every way possible. Personally I think Ukrainians are a sweet people that could join Europe even if Russian’s couldn’t. But the stage is set for at least eastern Ukraine to act as a Russian client state. (Canada’s client-state relationship to the USA for example.)

    3) “Certain developing countries will emerge as economic alternatives to an increasingly uncompetitive China”

    Already happening. The china miracle is slowing down. Not much surprise there.

    4) Economic instability will force change on China’s political foundations

    This one I don’t buy. I think that not enough time has passed, and that they will retain their strategy, as has france, of being a pain in the ass to the rest of the world in order to demonstrate their relevance.

    5) “The tension between economic interests and cultural stability will define Europe”

    Which is saying nothing. Either Europe evolves into a german empire (which is actually what I prefer) or the catholic and protestant countries have to split. Given that the low friction route is to maintain the german empire, I think this will be the result. If we can get the USA militarily and strategically out of Europe, then Germany might get out of her WW2 guilt and take responsibility for Europe once again. (Please). The is the only way I know of to rescue western civilization – to restore the confidence germanic protestant values and mythology.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-06-26 09:07:00 UTC

  • PRICE OF IGNORING THE LIBERTARIAN MIDDLE

    http://www.newmarksdoor.com/mainblog/2013/06/the-case-of-the-missing-white-voters-revisited.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NewmarksDoor+(Newmark’s+Door)THE PRICE OF IGNORING THE LIBERTARIAN MIDDLE.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-06-25 13:56:00 UTC

  • YOU CAN’T GET AROUND IT. Equalitarianism requires Totalitarianism. And women pre

    YOU CAN’T GET AROUND IT.

    Equalitarianism requires Totalitarianism.

    And women prefer both. They vote as blocks to demonstrate that they prefer both. Always. While some men prefer them, most women prefer them. And between some men and most women, the totalitarians have a slight majority in our republican democracy.

    Without women’s votes, women would have property rights equal to men, but not political privileges to vote for totalitarianism, and against the family.

    Men may have made western civilization over 5000 years, but women will either convert it to middle eastern, and eastern tyranny, or make us vulnerable to biological conquest by middle eastern tyranny, in less two centuries.

    It’s counter intuitive, but paternalism was made possible by the technology and fighting for property: over land and the domestication of animals, was the innovation that allowed the west to escape its matriarchal poverty, by forcing the creation of private and familial property.

    Matriarchy is equalitarianism in poverty. And equalitarianism is tyranny. Paternalism is private property and meritocracy. The difference is equality of outcome in maternal poverty or equality of opportunity in paternal prosperity.

    (Still working on this argument a bit.)

    🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2013-06-24 09:54:00 UTC