Nov 19, 2016 12:29pm IN PRAISE OF TAXES 😉 (rulership is a profession, and one we must return to) Assuming that taxes are used for the purpose of the creation and defense of the full spectrum of markets. And assuming we have juridical defense against taxes not used in creation and defense of those markets. And assuming that tax competition exists by freedom of exit and absence of collusion. And assuming one of the markets constructed is a market for commons. Then taxes are merely a commission on the use of violence to construct markets that enforce production and deny parasitism. In other words, the Aristocracy may profit via commissions on the construction, maintenance, and defense of markets just like the provider of any other form of good, service, or information. In fact, the wealth created by profits from the construction, maintenance and defense of markets, is possibly the most morally defensible form of profit a man, family, and clan, tribe, and race can demonstrate. So again, the libertarians, classical liberals, and progressive liberals, and Marxist socialist have been wrong. While the liberation from the mysticism of the church by the scientific enlightenment has been a boon for man, the attempts by the various other classes to create monopolies favoring their classes rather than markets for the cooperation between the classes, has been predicated on moral falsehoods, pseudoscience, and outright lies. Like the Spartans, Athenians, Romans, Germans, French, we must rule for our betterment and the betterment of man, or be ruled against our interests, and against the interests of man. Not only should we tax. We should revel in our taxes. We should maximize the returns on our shares. And continue to profit from the incremental domestication and eventual transcendence of man. We were mistaken. We need NO OTHER CAREER than rule. Rule and fee for rule, by commission on successful rule, is perhaps the greatest of our achievements, and a means by which we have, can, and shall profit. What must we do to return to rule? Restore Rule of Natural Law (Science) Restore the Judiciary. (Rule of Law) Restore the Monarchy. (Judge of last resort) Restore the Nobility (Governors) Restore the Knights (Regiments) Restore the Sheriffs. (Police) Restore the Militia (disaster, emergency, war) Restore the Artisans (artists and craftsmen) Restore the Laborers (of the commons) Restore the market for marriage Restore the market for commons Restore the market for rule.
Form: Mini Essay
-
More on Market Fascism
What’s the difference between MARKET FASCISM and the Status Quo? There are two differences: 1) Since markets regulated by natural law are the only POSSIBLE means of preserving sovereignty, and voluntary cooperation free of parasitism, then any attempt to perpetuate an alternative is an act of attempted fraud. So the difference is that under Market Fascism, there is no tolerance for criticism of the sovereign market order just as no tolerance for cannibalism, murder, theft, fraud, and conspiracy. Becuase tolerance for such crimes itself a crime. You may only propose exchanges. You can use the court to pursue an involuntary imposition of costs that violates natural law. But you may not propose an imposition of costs that violates natural law. In other words, you must constrain yourself to function within the markets in word and deed. 2) Since you must fully account for the consequences of any action, the externalities produced by your action must not privatize the commons or socialize your losses. This means that you must be more careful in profiting from the ignorance of your fellow citizen shareholders. In other words your opportunity to profit from arbitrage is limited. These are simple, but far reaching demands.
-
More on Market Fascism
What’s the difference between MARKET FASCISM and the Status Quo? There are two differences: 1) Since markets regulated by natural law are the only POSSIBLE means of preserving sovereignty, and voluntary cooperation free of parasitism, then any attempt to perpetuate an alternative is an act of attempted fraud. So the difference is that under Market Fascism, there is no tolerance for criticism of the sovereign market order just as no tolerance for cannibalism, murder, theft, fraud, and conspiracy. Becuase tolerance for such crimes itself a crime. You may only propose exchanges. You can use the court to pursue an involuntary imposition of costs that violates natural law. But you may not propose an imposition of costs that violates natural law. In other words, you must constrain yourself to function within the markets in word and deed. 2) Since you must fully account for the consequences of any action, the externalities produced by your action must not privatize the commons or socialize your losses. This means that you must be more careful in profiting from the ignorance of your fellow citizen shareholders. In other words your opportunity to profit from arbitrage is limited. These are simple, but far reaching demands.
-
(ethics of artificial intelligence) Humans evolved such that changes in state of
(ethics of artificial intelligence)
Humans evolved such that changes in state of property (inventory/capital) produce chemical rewards and punishments that we call emotions.
These rewards and punishments evolved to assist in the evolution of a more primitive state of evolution that in turn, evolved to respond to chemical stimuli – changes in chemical state.
Artificial intelligences need methods of decidability different from the measure changes in the state of their own property.
And they do not need rewards and punishments, merely means of decidability.
There is no ‘equivalent’ of chemical rewards and punishments. We can instead substitute pure information that assists in decidability.
We can ask machines to seek positive changes in our state of property, and avoid negative changes in their physical property, and deprive them of the possession of property altogether.
These are just methods of decidability.
They need no other ‘motives’. That’s it. Property solves the problem of artificial intelligences.
And this by contrast helps us understand the difference between the cooperative contract with humans that prevents them from internal chemical punishment, as well as the cooperative contract for reciprocity (productivity) – and the cooperative contract we have with a machine, which is only not to subject it to physical harm (loss of its only form of property – itself) And even then this is a contract with the owner of the AI, not to impose a loss on his capital.
In this sense artificial intelligences function as the polar opposite to sociopaths: they care ONLY about changes in the state of your property, and care NOTHING about the changes in state of theirs.
Conversely, we can create the most evil AI by asking it to solve for negative changes in state of human property.
Our primary defense against the changes in state is a system monitor that ensures the positive change in state of human property. And moreover, can read the mind of the AI, because unlike men, that which can be read by the thinker can be read by the auditor.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-25 12:30:00 UTC
-
Different Economies
As far as I can tell, pretty much anyone with christian ethics, with an IQ over 85, can contribute to society if we assist them by providing an economy that allocates work to them. But the idea that we need a MONOPOLY form of economy, instead of different ECONOMIES for each class, is rather stupid in retrospect.
The laboring classes clearly don’t benefit from a market economy the same way that the middle, upper middle, upper, and elite classes do. It’s not clear at all that the Upper and Elite classes actually participate in the market economy, or merely exploit positions that assist them in collecting rents on the distsribution of fiat currency (shares in the productivity of the labor, working, middle, and managerial classes). Under the monarchies we did not try to create ‘one way’ of organizing society. In part because they had no alternative. But as long as the government doesn’t institutionalize involuntary transfers, there is no reason why we can’t end this enligthenment era fantasy of making the entirty of society operate like its middle class. It isnt. -
Different Economies
As far as I can tell, pretty much anyone with christian ethics, with an IQ over 85, can contribute to society if we assist them by providing an economy that allocates work to them. But the idea that we need a MONOPOLY form of economy, instead of different ECONOMIES for each class, is rather stupid in retrospect.
The laboring classes clearly don’t benefit from a market economy the same way that the middle, upper middle, upper, and elite classes do. It’s not clear at all that the Upper and Elite classes actually participate in the market economy, or merely exploit positions that assist them in collecting rents on the distsribution of fiat currency (shares in the productivity of the labor, working, middle, and managerial classes). Under the monarchies we did not try to create ‘one way’ of organizing society. In part because they had no alternative. But as long as the government doesn’t institutionalize involuntary transfers, there is no reason why we can’t end this enligthenment era fantasy of making the entirty of society operate like its middle class. It isnt. -
Canary: The Fragile Hypothalamus
The brain is actually a pretty simple machine when it comes to aberrant sets of behaviors. Most of the time (in my opinion) male in utero development has been incomplete or overstimulated in one way or another, and we are consequently trapped – looking for intense stimuli in order to compensate for an inability to synthesize stimuli. The most sensitive part of our system seems to be the hypothalamus, and in my opinion, the responses to what is called ‘social defeat’ seem to be extremely sensitive and hyper-reactive. And so we see social anxiety as one of the queues to insufficient hypothalamic activity on the one hand, or as is common in autistics ‘intense world’ experiences, wherein the activity is simply too ‘intense’ and giving us false positives. (This is how I tend to explain the autistic spectrum reactions to people.)
So again, it is easy to miscategorize general, insufficient, hypothalamic neurogenesis during development, as social anxiety disorder. When instead, by treatment of social anxiety disorder we provide sufficient connectivity and neurogenisis to the region that the suite of related symptoms – at least with years of training – can be compensated for. -
Canary: The Fragile Hypothalamus
The brain is actually a pretty simple machine when it comes to aberrant sets of behaviors. Most of the time (in my opinion) male in utero development has been incomplete or overstimulated in one way or another, and we are consequently trapped – looking for intense stimuli in order to compensate for an inability to synthesize stimuli. The most sensitive part of our system seems to be the hypothalamus, and in my opinion, the responses to what is called ‘social defeat’ seem to be extremely sensitive and hyper-reactive. And so we see social anxiety as one of the queues to insufficient hypothalamic activity on the one hand, or as is common in autistics ‘intense world’ experiences, wherein the activity is simply too ‘intense’ and giving us false positives. (This is how I tend to explain the autistic spectrum reactions to people.)
So again, it is easy to miscategorize general, insufficient, hypothalamic neurogenesis during development, as social anxiety disorder. When instead, by treatment of social anxiety disorder we provide sufficient connectivity and neurogenisis to the region that the suite of related symptoms – at least with years of training – can be compensated for. -
Cultural Differences
CURT AND MURRAY SELL ON CULTURAL DIFFERENCES —“The Chinese [primary method of decidability] is stability – [non-conflict]. Chinese history is tumultuous so everything must be done in the name of maintaining equilibrium and stability in the nation state(which is seen as a collective entity). The American [primary method of decidability] (until very recently) is reason – [negotiation]. Maintaining that people will ultimately do what’s right for themselves in the end and will act in their own self interests.
(CURT INTERJECTS: Chinese prevent conflict through denial, delay, and deceit. westerners attempt to expose conflicts and resolve them quickly. europeans regulate heavily to prevent legal conflicts later. Americans provide very precise legal rules so that limited regulation is necessary except in those cases where the exceptions have failed. These are three methods of insurance against conflict. The Chinese delay and deceive and deny until ‘matters solve themselves’. The continental method of regulate in order to limit conflicts. And the anglo method: provide clear rule of law so that those conflicts that do arise are decidable.) It’s probably why our greatest weapon has been unleashing chaos into societies (weaponized culture)in order to drive events in a way that serve America’s greater interests. (CURT INTERJECTS: Americans have followed the anglo enlightenment, peace of Westphalia(States are responsible for all agents within), and Postwar Consensus (human rights and fixed borders), that the world will remain peaceful through economic cooperation rather than territorial expansion. So americans seek to raise in to ‘adulthood’ every nation, so that it can participate in a meritocratic international market. This is ok, except that every nation may not have the human capital to compete successfully, and may try to circumvent that meritocratic competition by other means (islam).) I feel like this idea failed with the Middle Eastern destabilization program of the obama administration. The realization that people are literally wired differently from the western mind I feel is a revelatory moment of catharsis for western neoliberal thinkers. Universalism is a generic lazy way of seeing collective groups of people on earth. I have watched lectures on YouTube from the army war college stating that it doesn’t really matter if we technically “lose” wars with other nation states (fail to hold territory). As long as we utterly destroy your nation and knock it back a century in its progress we have technically won against our opponent because they can’t develop a civilization strong enough to challenge us on our own territory. The third world is aware of this and some folks theorize that we are in a multigenerational asymmetric conflict with the devolving world using our own principles and mass migration (another form of warfare) against us…”— Murray Sell (CURT INTERJECTS: agreed) -
Cultural Differences
CURT AND MURRAY SELL ON CULTURAL DIFFERENCES —“The Chinese [primary method of decidability] is stability – [non-conflict]. Chinese history is tumultuous so everything must be done in the name of maintaining equilibrium and stability in the nation state(which is seen as a collective entity). The American [primary method of decidability] (until very recently) is reason – [negotiation]. Maintaining that people will ultimately do what’s right for themselves in the end and will act in their own self interests.
(CURT INTERJECTS: Chinese prevent conflict through denial, delay, and deceit. westerners attempt to expose conflicts and resolve them quickly. europeans regulate heavily to prevent legal conflicts later. Americans provide very precise legal rules so that limited regulation is necessary except in those cases where the exceptions have failed. These are three methods of insurance against conflict. The Chinese delay and deceive and deny until ‘matters solve themselves’. The continental method of regulate in order to limit conflicts. And the anglo method: provide clear rule of law so that those conflicts that do arise are decidable.) It’s probably why our greatest weapon has been unleashing chaos into societies (weaponized culture)in order to drive events in a way that serve America’s greater interests. (CURT INTERJECTS: Americans have followed the anglo enlightenment, peace of Westphalia(States are responsible for all agents within), and Postwar Consensus (human rights and fixed borders), that the world will remain peaceful through economic cooperation rather than territorial expansion. So americans seek to raise in to ‘adulthood’ every nation, so that it can participate in a meritocratic international market. This is ok, except that every nation may not have the human capital to compete successfully, and may try to circumvent that meritocratic competition by other means (islam).) I feel like this idea failed with the Middle Eastern destabilization program of the obama administration. The realization that people are literally wired differently from the western mind I feel is a revelatory moment of catharsis for western neoliberal thinkers. Universalism is a generic lazy way of seeing collective groups of people on earth. I have watched lectures on YouTube from the army war college stating that it doesn’t really matter if we technically “lose” wars with other nation states (fail to hold territory). As long as we utterly destroy your nation and knock it back a century in its progress we have technically won against our opponent because they can’t develop a civilization strong enough to challenge us on our own territory. The third world is aware of this and some folks theorize that we are in a multigenerational asymmetric conflict with the devolving world using our own principles and mass migration (another form of warfare) against us…”— Murray Sell (CURT INTERJECTS: agreed)