Apr 19, 2017 8:15am FIAT MONEY? It’s not that it’s a good thing. It’s that you can’t compete without it. Nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, nitrocellulose, gunpowder, are not ‘a good thing’ in any sense like copper, bronze, iron, and steel are good things. But once extant one must master them or be mastered by them. Fiat money must be mastered or you will be mastered by those who master it. Fiat money is not ‘money’ but a money substitute – a form of token, consisting of tradable shares in the organization we call the state. Just as one used to buy tickets for rides at the amusement park so that the ride-owners would not evade their fees, we buy fiat money so that all commerce in the market is burdened by fees. We cannot chose NO MARKET to participate in (state) so we are left with choosing the markets available. And if we tried to create a libertarian polity without funding that market we would be defeated by any number of forces internal and external.
Form: Mini Essay
-
The Last Piece: Tying Together Markets in Everything…
Yep. Transcendence and Sovereignty were the last pieces. In the end, warriors make rule possible, but Judges rule. In the monopoly of soldiery officers rule, and in the market of cooperation judges rule. Judges and Officers provide the same function under positiva (military) and negativa (market) organizations. The question is only which method judges use to rule. And there is only one scientific, logical, true, and perfectly decidable method by which judges *can* rule, and that is Reciprocity: The Natural Law of Sovereign Men. The west has always been poly-narrative. With each class evolving its own narrative. And with each class narrative justifying its role in the natural law of sovereign men. The cult of sovereignty for the aristocracy, the cult of law for the priesthood of the aristocracy, the cult of philosophy for the middle aspirational classes, and the cult of religion for the laboring classes, and the cult of rejection, rebellion, and escape by the undesirable classes. And in turn, there is only one method of producing Sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and sufficient surplus for subsidy, and this is via the incremental suppression of parasitisms in all its forms, producing sovereign men, and eliminating parasitic men – leaving only means of survival in markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons, and production of polities. The monarchy provides the judge of last resort in war, the judiciary the judge of markets, and the officer corps the commander of the monopoly that is war. And so, as long as the men willing and able to fight for sovereignty are trained in, and participate in, a local militia, a regional regimental system, and are trained by a national army, in exchange for rights of public speech, access to territorial and capital ownership, and participation in the choice of commons, then because of their arms and their numbers, no usurper can deprive them of sovereignty; and because of their investment and advantage from it, they will preserve their sovereignty, and because of their universal standing in courts of natural law, they will have incentive and peaceful and productive means of preserving their sovereignty, through the incremental suppression of all parasitism of which they are aware. Men must create a market for the suppression of parasitism, by in turn creating a market for cooperation, because of the market for violence that is the result of a large militia of diverse personal but homogenous collective, interests. There is but one method of obtaining and preserving the sovereignty, necessary for the production of agency, necessary for the transcendence of man, and that is the organization of a franchise (corporation) of warriors of sufficient number, with sufficient incentives, and sufficient institutional means, that the only conditions that prevent conflict and preserve cooperation. The advantage of this order is that we preserve our original innovation: maneuver (what we call today ooda-loops) because of the distribution of decision making to the lowest possible level of the organization: a market for heroism in battle. We developed markets in everything, because markets adapt faster and innovate faster than all alternatives. And for a small population of people, the use of excellence(professionals) and technology (excellence), and markets (maneuver) is simply *faster* in all dimensions than all larger and slower alternatives. He who adapts fastest and best has the advantage. Because the first and last enemy of all is TIME.
-
The Last Piece: Tying Together Markets in Everything…
Yep. Transcendence and Sovereignty were the last pieces. In the end, warriors make rule possible, but Judges rule. In the monopoly of soldiery officers rule, and in the market of cooperation judges rule. Judges and Officers provide the same function under positiva (military) and negativa (market) organizations. The question is only which method judges use to rule. And there is only one scientific, logical, true, and perfectly decidable method by which judges *can* rule, and that is Reciprocity: The Natural Law of Sovereign Men. The west has always been poly-narrative. With each class evolving its own narrative. And with each class narrative justifying its role in the natural law of sovereign men. The cult of sovereignty for the aristocracy, the cult of law for the priesthood of the aristocracy, the cult of philosophy for the middle aspirational classes, and the cult of religion for the laboring classes, and the cult of rejection, rebellion, and escape by the undesirable classes. And in turn, there is only one method of producing Sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and sufficient surplus for subsidy, and this is via the incremental suppression of parasitisms in all its forms, producing sovereign men, and eliminating parasitic men – leaving only means of survival in markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons, and production of polities. The monarchy provides the judge of last resort in war, the judiciary the judge of markets, and the officer corps the commander of the monopoly that is war. And so, as long as the men willing and able to fight for sovereignty are trained in, and participate in, a local militia, a regional regimental system, and are trained by a national army, in exchange for rights of public speech, access to territorial and capital ownership, and participation in the choice of commons, then because of their arms and their numbers, no usurper can deprive them of sovereignty; and because of their investment and advantage from it, they will preserve their sovereignty, and because of their universal standing in courts of natural law, they will have incentive and peaceful and productive means of preserving their sovereignty, through the incremental suppression of all parasitism of which they are aware. Men must create a market for the suppression of parasitism, by in turn creating a market for cooperation, because of the market for violence that is the result of a large militia of diverse personal but homogenous collective, interests. There is but one method of obtaining and preserving the sovereignty, necessary for the production of agency, necessary for the transcendence of man, and that is the organization of a franchise (corporation) of warriors of sufficient number, with sufficient incentives, and sufficient institutional means, that the only conditions that prevent conflict and preserve cooperation. The advantage of this order is that we preserve our original innovation: maneuver (what we call today ooda-loops) because of the distribution of decision making to the lowest possible level of the organization: a market for heroism in battle. We developed markets in everything, because markets adapt faster and innovate faster than all alternatives. And for a small population of people, the use of excellence(professionals) and technology (excellence), and markets (maneuver) is simply *faster* in all dimensions than all larger and slower alternatives. He who adapts fastest and best has the advantage. Because the first and last enemy of all is TIME.
-
Yep. Transcendence and Sovereignty were the last pieces. In the end, warriors ma
Yep. Transcendence and Sovereignty were the last pieces.
In the end, warriors make rule possible, but Judges rule. In the monopoly of soldiery officers rule, and in the market of cooperation judges rule. Judges and Officers provide the same function under positiva (military) and negativa (market) organizations.
The question is only which method judges use to rule. And there is only one scientific, logical, true, and perfectly decidable method by which judges *can* rule, and that is Reciprocity: The Natural Law of Sovereign Men.
The west has always been poly-narrative. With each class evolving its own narrative. And with each class narrative justifying its role in the natural law of sovereign men. The cult of sovereignty for the aristocracy, the cult of law for the priesthood of the aristocracy, the cult of philosophy for the middle aspirational classes, and the cult of religion for the laboring classes, and the cult of rejection, rebellion, and escape by the undesirable classes.
And in turn, there is only one method of producing Sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and sufficient surplus for subsidy, and this is via the incremental suppression of parasitisms in all its forms, producing sovereign men, and eliminating parasitic men – leaving only means of survival in markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons, and production of polities. The monarchy provides the judge of last resort in war, the judiciary the judge of markets, and the officer corps the commander of the monopoly that is war.
And so, as long as the men willing and able to fight for sovereignty are trained in, and participate in, a local militia, a regional regimental system, and are trained by a national army, in exchange for rights of public speech, access to territorial and capital ownership, and participation in the choice of commons, then because of their arms and their numbers, no usurper can deprive them of sovereignty; and because of their investment and advantage from it, they will preserve their sovereignty, and because of their universal standing in courts of natural law, they will have incentive and peaceful and productive means of preserving their sovereignty, through the incremental suppression of all parasitism of which they are aware. Men must create a market for the suppression of parasitism, by in turn creating a market for cooperation, because of the market for violence that is the result of a large militia of diverse personal but homogenous collective, interests.
There is but one method of obtaining and preserving the sovereignty, necessary for the production of agency, necessary for the transcendence of man, and that is the organization of a franchise (corporation) of warriors of sufficient number, with sufficient incentives, and sufficient institutional means, that the only conditions that prevent conflict and preserve cooperation.
The advantage of this order is that we preserve our original innovation: maneuver (what we call today ooda-loops) because of the distribution of decision making to the lowest possible level of the organization: a market for heroism in battle.
We developed markets in everything, because markets adapt faster and innovate faster than all alternatives. And for a small population of people, the use of excellence(professionals) and technology (excellence), and markets (maneuver) is simply *faster* in all dimensions than all larger and slower alternatives.
He who adapts fastest and best has the advantage. Because the first and last enemy of all is TIME.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-20 08:54:00 UTC
-
THE INFORMATION CONTENT OF VIOLENCE: It’s an article of faith among many liberta
THE INFORMATION CONTENT OF VIOLENCE:
It’s an article of faith among many libertarians that violence, and particularly aggressive violence, is necessarily negative sum.
Prices contain information and markets broker them (in a subjective utility maximising way.) Violence only short circuits that, disrupts markets, destroy price signals, and makes everyone worse off.
But this is not correct.
In the first place, market transactions aren’t necessarily positive sum. If they are fraudulent or create negative externalities for those not party, they can be negative sum.
And in the second place, violence is itself a signal, and transmits information. A threat expresses a subjective evaluation just as an offer does in the marketplace. “Hey, don’t do that or we’re going to fight.”
And the initiation of hostilities demonstrates the authenticity of that information just as a payment does in the marketplace. One undertakes real cost, and real risk, in resorting to violence.
(In contrast, whining, and playing the victim DO NOT demonstrate the authenticity of grievances in the way that resorting to violence does, and so are liable and likely to prove negative sum, if indulged, just as theft is liable and likely to prove negative sum, in the marketplace, because it does not make a sufficient demonstration and exchange of value.)
Markets and prices on the one hand, and violence and threats on the other, are both necessary components to a stable, functional, and efficient society and economy. To suppress either wholly in favor of the other, would be to forego the benefits they offer, and to pervert incentives towards destructive outcomes.
No society which does either will be able to compete, long term, against one which makes a more sensible tradeoff between them, making best use of information supplied by both exchange and conflict.
Violence is the means of expressing the subjective evaluations not captured by price signals, which are as vast and varied as those which are.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 11:49:00 UTC
-
STATES AND HOW TO DEAL WITH THEM Asking forgiveness for analytic exposition in a
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/04/think-deep-state.html#comment-159623059DEEP STATES AND HOW TO DEAL WITH THEM
Asking forgiveness for analytic exposition in advance…..
THE HIERARCHY OF MODELS:
1) Michels-ian View (Evolutionary): Deep state – a deterministic and necessary consequence of all human orders, because of the value and need for synthesis of information and provision of decidability necessary to concentrate forces of coercion (persuasion) – necessities that cannot be rectified.
2) Economists View (Systematizing): Deep state – a conspiracy of common interests – interests that must be rectified by the correct incentives.
3) Common Folk’s view (Intentional-izing): Deep state – a deliberate conspiracy of common interests – indicating immoral people with immoral interests that must be punished or replaced.
4) Ancient Folk’s View (anthropomorphism): The gods intend it so…. We are the Victims of the vicissitudes of the gods, and nothing can be done except to fight or submit to them.
THEORIES
1) The Chinese Proposition: the state is the most profitable and important industry and should be run as an industry, by the best people, selected from the best universities, and professionally trained with increasing responsibility from the local to the regional to the national level.
2) Fukuyama’s Theory: (German Model) That the professionalization of a bureaucracy prior to democracy, under continental law will create a deep state that uses prior restraint, and serves the public interest out of tradition and self interest.
3) The Anglo Saxon Theory (Classical Liberalism): That patronage leadership of the bureaucracies should provide a means of correcting and cleansing the bureaucracies. But as Fukuyama has shown, this leads to the opposite effect.
4) The American Theory (minimalism): the only means of preventing endemic corruption, and providing maximum quality of goods services and information is maximum privatization of all services despite the resistance by the bureaucracy (monopoly).
5) The Science: States that produce monopoly services as investor of last resort (or monopoly investor in the commons) can produce industries, and retreat into the german, anglo saxon, or american theory depending upon the degree of trust in the judiciary to resolve disputes between the citizenry and the service organizations. In other words, the problem is the degree of trust and trustworthiness present in the culture – which in and of itself is created by those courts.
GENERAL LAWS:
1) Iron Law of Oligarchy : oligarchies whether formal, patronage, kin, ‘specialized knowledge’, or ‘social networks” will evolve because decisions that concentrate resources (forces of coercion) cannot be created otherwise, and the organization cannot survive competition.
2) “Cthulu Swims Left”: any organization without a formal logic (law) to bind it, will exploit all opportunities for discretion to expand to the point of maximum rent seeking – until met by shock which it lacks the free resources to use in re-creating incentives necessary to reorganize under the new conditions.
3) Law of Maximizing of Rents: All organizations whether public or private will seek to maximize rents while providing the minimum returns to customers, creditors, and investors that customers, creditors, and investors will tolerate.
THE SCIENCE
Either we implement a strictly constructed, exceptionless, constitution of natural law (reciprocity) requiring markets in every aspect of life (association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons (government), production of polities) with universal standing, universal application (rule of law), an insurer of last resort (Singapore Model), or we will continue (as we have) to deliver a private economy for association and reproduction, a mixed economy for the production of goods, services, and information, and a majoritarian monopoly economy, for the provision of commons whether goods, services, and information, and an absolute monopoly for insurer of last resort.
You can evolve a population through rule of law, if you can evolve a court through rule of law, but you cannot evolve a court through rule of law, if your system of law is discretionary rather than one of rule of law. In other words, it is not possible to produce a non-discretionary rule of law, and therefore a government of low corruption, unless you produce first a law that is not open to interpretation and ‘fudging’.
All societies require a system of government equal to their degree of imposition of rule of law. The problem is demographics, the percentage of people in a legally bound economy (the size of the middle class). As such we should expect to see small homogenous societies with strong rule of law and heavy redistribution on one end, and large heterogeneous societies with heavy corruption on the other.
And that is what we see.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 11:27:00 UTC
-
THE AMERICAN GENERATIONS FOR IGNORANT ALT-RIGHTERS THE DEPRESSION ERA Born: 1912
THE AMERICAN GENERATIONS FOR IGNORANT ALT-RIGHTERS
THE DEPRESSION ERA
Born: 1912-1921
Coming of Age: 1930-1939
Age in 2004: 83 to 92
Current Population: 11-12 million (and declining rapidly)
Depression era individuals tend to be conservative, compulsive savers, maintain low debt and use more secure financial products like CDs versus stocks.
These individuals tend to feel a responsibility to leave a legacy to their children. Tend to be patriotic, oriented toward work before pleasure, respect for authority, have a sense of moral obligation.
WORLD WAR II
Born: 1922 to 1927
Coming of Age: 1940-1945
Age in 2004: 77-82
Current Population: 11 million (in quickening decline)
People in this cohort shared in a common goal of defeating the Axis powers. There was an accepted sense of “deferment” among this group, contrasted with the emphasis on “me” in more recent (i.e. Gen X) cohorts.
POST-WAR COHORT
Born: 1928-1945
Coming of Age: 1946-1963
Age in 2004: 59 to 76
Current Population: 41 million (declining)
This generation had significant opportunities in jobs and education as the War ended and a post-war economic boom struck America. However, the growth in Cold War tensions, the potential for nuclear war and other never before seen threats led to levels of discomfort and uncertainty throughout the generation. Members of this group value security, comfort, and familiar, known activities and environments.
BOOMERS I OR THE BABY BOOMERS
Born: 1946-1954
Coming of Age: 1963-1972
Age in 2004: 50-58
Current Population: 33 million
For a long time the Baby Boomers were defined as those born between 1945 and 1964. That would make the generation huge (71 million) and encompass people who were 20 years apart in age. It didn’t compute to have those born in 1964 compared with those born in 1946. Life experiences were completely different.
Attitudes, behaviors and society were vastly different. In effect, all the elements that help to define a cohort were violated by the broad span of years originally included in the concept of the Baby Boomers. The first Boomer segment is bounded by the Kennedy and Martin Luther King assassinations, the Civil Rights movements and the Vietnam War. Boomers I were in or protested the War. Boomers 2 or the Jones Generation missed the whole thing.
Boomers I had good economic opportunities and were largely optimistic about the potential for America and their own lives, the Vietnam War notwithstanding.
BOOMERS II OR GENERATION JONES
Born: 1955-1965
Coming of Age: 1973-1983
Age in 2004: 39 to 49
Current Population: 49 million
This first post-Watergate generation lost much of its trust in government and optimistic views the Boomers I maintained. Economic struggles including the oil embargo of 1979 reinforced a sense of “I’m out for me” and narcissism and a focus on self-help and skepticism over media and institutions is representative of attitudes of this cohort. While Boomers I had Vietnam, Boomers II had AIDS as part of their rites of passage. The youngest members of the Boomer II generation in fact did not have the benefits of the Boomer I class as many of the best jobs, opportunities, housing etc. were taken by the larger and earlier group. Both Gen X and Boomer II s suffer from this long shadow cast by Boomers I.
GENERATION X
Born: 1966-1976
Coming of Age: 1988-1994
Age in 2004: 28 to 38
Current Population: 41 million
Sometimes referred to as the “lost” generation, this was the first
generation of “latchkey” kids, exposed to lots of daycare and divorce. Known as the generation with the lowest voting participation rate of any generation, Gen Xers were quoted by Newsweek as “the generation that dropped out without ever turning on the news or tuning in to the social issues around them.”
Gen X is often characterized by high levels of skepticism, “what’s in it for me” attitudes and a reputation for some of the worst music to ever gain popularity. Now, moving into adulthood William Morrow (Generations) cited the childhood divorce of many Gen Xers as “one of the most decisive experiences influencing how Gen Xers will shape their own families”.
Gen Xers are arguably the best educated generation with 29% obtaining a bachelor’s degree or higher (6% higher than the previous cohort). And, with that education and a growing maturity they are starting to form families with a higher level of caution and pragmatism than their parents demonstrated. Concerns run high over avoiding broken homes, kids growing up without a parent around and financial planning.
GENERATION Y, ECHO BOOMERS, OR MILLENNIALS
Born: 1977-1994
Coming of Age: 1998-2006
Age in 2004: 10 to 22
Current Population: 71 million
The largest cohort since the Baby Boomers, their high numbers reflect their births as that of their parent generation. The last of the Boomer Is and most of the Boomer II s. Gen Y kids are known as incredibly sophisticated, technology wise, immune to most traditional marketing and sales pitches…as they not only grew up with it all, they’ve seen it all and been exposed to it all since early childhood.
Gen Y members are much more racially and ethnically diverse and they are much more segmented as an audience aided by the rapid expansion in Cable TV channels, satellite radio, the Internet, e-zines, etc.
Gen Y are less brand loyal and the speed of the Internet has led the cohort to be similarly flexible and changing in its fashion, style consciousness and where and how it is communicated with.
Gen Y kids often raised in dual income or single parent families have been more involved in family purchases…everything from groceries to new cars. One in nine Gen Yers has a credit card co-signed by a parent.
GENERATION Z
Born: 1995-2012
Coming of Age: 2013-2020
Age in 2004: 0-9
Current Population: 23 million and growing rapidly
While we don’t know much about Gen Z yet…we know a lot about the environment they are growing up in. This highly diverse environment will make the grade schools of the next generation the most diverse ever. Higher levels of technology will make significant inroads in academics allowing for customized instruction, data mining of student histories to enable pinpoint diagnostics and remediation or accelerated achievement opportunities.
Gen Z kids will grow up with a highly sophisticated media and computer environment and will be more Internet savvy and expert than their Gen Y forerunners. More to come on Gen Z…stay tuned.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 09:38:00 UTC
-
THE DECLINING VALUE OF THE LUNATIC FRINGE(EARLY ADOPTERS) So you know, the value
THE DECLINING VALUE OF THE LUNATIC FRINGE(EARLY ADOPTERS)
So you know, the value of idiots is that they make conventional stupid arguments giving you as an author opportunity to repeat central themes until newbies understand them.
We don’t learn by one ‘post’ or ‘article’ or ‘paper’ or ‘argument’ but by the repeated criticism of opposing propositions from multiple angles.
So I tend to do things like bait or attack different groups when I think something needs clarification, which attracts passionate idiots, who in turn serve as foils for those who are generally interested in learning something.
And thankfully, every time I do, I get one or two newbies who saw that argument and said “something rings true here”. And they stay followers or friends until that ‘intuition’ develops into understanding.
Unfortunately, there are people who are not idiots but lunatics, and while they are often very creative, and usually passionate, and therefore, participator.
The problem is this: is once you become popular enough that you can no longer answer idiotic questions, the lunatics that liked the attention they got realize they aren’t getting it and get hostile to you.
We see this cycle on every bbs, compuserve forum, every newsgroup, every website forum, and every facebook group. This is the normal cycle that every group goes through.
So when the lunatic fringe gets hostile it’s usually good procedure to ignore them. Because they inhibit your market ability just as they originally assisted in promoting it. And if you can’t ignore them, then just block them.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 15:52:00 UTC
-
THE POST-LOVE CIVILIZATION? Under agrarianism, the marriage bond was an extensio
THE POST-LOVE CIVILIZATION?
Under agrarianism, the marriage bond was an extension of the existing family and family relations, the want of children, the need to share labor in a household, and if possible, the need to survive, and sometimes if not often – erotic attraction. The ‘family’ was much closer to a ‘tribe’ or ‘clan’ – multiple generations of many family relationships few commercial relationships, and where marrigae meant joining a family (or uniting families).
Love as we think of it, as something more than Eros, but as finding the right person – the kindred spirit – was a 12th century invention of the Troubadores. It was made possible by sufficient wealth from the rise of trade, that we could think in such terms.
The marriage bond was an extension of the existing family and family relations, the want of children, the need to share labor in a household, and if possible, erotic attraction – but now we added compatibility to that list.
During this period we saw the rise of the traditional, nuclear and absllute nuclear families, where increasing mixing of families, and greater independence of families, but still multiple generations in the majority.
In the 1970’s because of contraception and because of the employability of women, and because of the vast post-war wealth, the vast increase in labor-saving home appliances, and the corresponding poverty of the undeveloped world (pre-consumer-capitalist world), westerner’s changed again such that marriage was now primarily a matter of friendship and sex, and only remotely important for reproductive, economic, survival, and security reasons.
Coupled with easy movement and migration this led to the marriage being the ONLY source of familial relationships or the dominant source.
And people became lonely. Alone. Disenfranchised. Alienated.
Capitalism was just the beginning. Feminism was the end.
And the only restoration is the familial corporation at all levels.
Because this model we have chosen is hyper consumptive and suicidal.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 13:29:00 UTC
-
WHAT LESSON DO OUR WOMEN TEACH US? We live In a world where we have worked hard
WHAT LESSON DO OUR WOMEN TEACH US?
We live In a world where we have worked hard to ensure that women were no longer stolen for sex, offspring, and labor. A world where women were no longer stolen for slaves, prostitution, and labor. A world where women were no longer sold for sex, labor, and reproduction by their fathers to increase kin, relations, property. A world where women were merely married to men of their own volition in exchange for sex, labor, and reproduction. A world where women are freed of all labor except child-bearing. A world where women need no longer even choose a man to own them, their sex, their labor and their reproduction with some promise of longevity; fear a man they will be sold to for the same with some hope of longevity. Where they will not be captured and sold for the same, regardless of their longevity – only their replacement cost. And where they are stolen, for sex, and labor, regardless of their burdensome offspring.
And it is in this world we have made our women turn against us. Within one generation of obtaining the vote women raised arms through the proxy of government, against us, and all we have built.
What lesson do our women teach us?
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 12:17:00 UTC