As a general rule, roughly doubling population density gains a 15% increase in both all goods and all bads. Why? Because the opportunity cost decreases. That should be pretty obvious. But now, let’s take a look at what happens to Commons: normative, institutional, and physical. They get cheaper. But they also get less valuable. Becuase the primary commons that produces returns is just density. But what happens to commons in non-urban areas: they get expensive, and they get more important. Because what sustains a population in the production of consumption, generations (families); goods, services, and information; commons, institutions, and territory. This explains the very great difference between cities, suburbs, and rural areas: government produces commons, under the perception of uniform cost and value to humans when the value of commons is determined by the difficulty in creating them, preserving and maintaining them, and the cost of infractions gainst them. We have the electoral college to ensure that the large states that have such discount on commons production cannot overwhelm the smaller states with smaller budgets, or smaller populations or smaller territories. But what we do NOT have is votes within states determined by opportunity costs: population density. Yet we tax people by income which to some degree reflects population density, because income is determined largely by that density, because opportunities are determined by that density. Now there is a trade-off between the ‘cheapness’ of opportunities for CONSUMPTION in the city versus the expense of opportunities for INVESTMENT in the suburban and rural areas. I hadn’t really given this much thought in the past although it’s intuitively obvious that the electoral college is necessary to prevent the people living off cheap commons in cities to force harm to the people in lower density places with expensive commons. But since the entire purpose of government is the production of commons then it’s only logical: we lack a means of calculating the differences in these invisible differences in opportunity costs, and that without compensating for density, we are harming the suburban and rural areas. Now, of course, we could say that rural and suburban areas don’t matter, but the truth is that cities are dysgenic IQ sinks, cultural conflict generators, and debt increasers, as well as helpful marketplaces And that the reason that we immigrated so many people into this country after 1803’s Louisiana Purchase was to fill up the west with people, so that we could hold the territory in case the Europeans decided to come back and take it again. Because you only hold territory as both a resource and as a buffer against competitors if it’s full enough of people to do so. if votes were weighted by county by population density, that would ameliorate the differences between the different opportunity costs. Now is this going to happen? Unlikely. So the alternative is secession so that regions, states, and localities can produce with government that which government is necessary to produce: commons. And my alternative is to convert government from a monopoly to a market for the production of commons so that groups can produce local commons that they desire without the interference of others. May a thousand nations bloom. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
Form: Mini Essay
-
THE THREE ORDERS: KIN, CULT, STATE I would say that the Cathedral Complex (state
THE THREE ORDERS: KIN, CULT, STATE
I would say that the Cathedral Complex (state, academy, media) are all engaged in customer seeking – an incrementalist form of rent seeking. They profit from the building of customers and rents.
The interesting question not discussed is that because we humans make use of law, religion, and market, but we choose a dominant bias with which to employ them in our social orders, yielding:
(1)kin/law,
(2)cult/religion, or
(3)state/corporatism;
depending upon homogeneity or heterogeneity of the population; to overcome resistance to the creation and preservation of commons – so that why is it that one bias in the order is always better off than the others?
And why does not social-criticism and intellectual-decidability limit itself to the order desired by the population? of course, we know the answer is genetic in both desire for construct, and in the expression of that desire for construct as a will to power.
I frequently ask the same question: why do economists vary in bias of decidability? for the same reason: austrian-social-science and rule of law preserving sovereignty, freshwater limits of rule of law as a commons against harm, and saltwater abandonment of rule of law in favor of preferential discretion in order to acquire customers for the state.
If it isn’t clear to you, then the answer is this: anything other than kin/law is nothing more than an act of war by slower means.
We have been at war. We are at war.
Time to win the war.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-13 16:36:00 UTC
-
PETER BOETTKE ON THE REVEAL: PARTISAN CHEERLEADERS NOT SOCIAL CRITICS Observatio
PETER BOETTKE ON THE REVEAL: PARTISAN CHEERLEADERS NOT SOCIAL CRITICS
Observation — journalists and other intellectuals freaking out over the outcome of the election reveal that they were never really “students” of society, or even “social critics”, but were instead partisan cheerleaders. Also, it appears that many are completely incapable of asking themselves whether it might be possible that the consensus of the progressive elite in public policy is perhaps neither as accurately descriptive of how the world works or as normatively appealing as they sincerely believe. Rather than critical self-reflection we see outrage, blame, and emotional expression of pain.
There are many reasons to be concerned, but the responsible response from intellectuals is to think through rationally, to ask what I was wrong about, try to force yourself to pass an ideological Turning Test, and to recognize that if there are institutional problems the answer requires institutional solutions.
Liberal democratic traditions do not work based on the “good” and the “wise” being in power, but were designed so that “bad men can do least harm”. Let’s hope those liberal democratic institutions are still in operation after so many years of sustained critique by progressive intellectuals.
Democratic governance (liberalism) is a different beast from bureaucratic governance (progressivism). Bureaucratic governance requires trained experts immune from democratic checks and balances, democratic governance requires responsible citizens and institutions that empower as well as constrain. – Peter Boettke
(NOTE: I would say they are all engaged in customer seeking – a long form of rent seeking. The interesting question not discussed is that because we humans make use of law, religion, and market, but we choose a dominant bias with which to employ them in our social orders, yielding:
(1)kin/law,
(2)cult/religion, or
(3)state/corporatism;
depending upon homogeneity or heterogeneity of the population; to overcome resistance to the creation and preservation of commons – so that why is it that one bias in the order is always better off than the others? And why does not social-criticism and intellectual-decidability limit itself to the order desired by the population? of course, we know the answer is genetic in both desire for construct, and in the expression of that desire for construct as a will to power.
I frequently ask the same question: why do economists vary in bias of decidability? for the same reason: austrian-social-science and rule of law preserving sovereignty, freshwater limits of rule of law as a commons against harm, and saltwater abandonment of rule of law in favor of preferential discretion in order to acquire customers for the state.
If it isn’t clear to you, then the answer is this: anything other than kin/law is nothing more than an act of war by slower means. – CD )
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-13 08:00:00 UTC
-
The ‘Talk’: Why We Are Stooping to the Left’s Level
In person i am a gentleman. But I learned a lot from Hayek’s pristine, gentlemanly, german failure with Keynes: never give the enemy an inch out of grace. We aren’t Victorians. This is a street fight. A brawl. And I use broken bottles, brass knuckles, clubs, knives, guns, and every other weapon I can get my hands on. And so do all of us in the various New Right groups.
When the left, via Alinsky, took the battle to the streets, they broke with our ancient european tradition and adopted the techniques of the peasantry. That’s’ all well and good for them – until they realized in this election that we gave up on our Victorianism and stooped to their level. And the alt-right beat them to a bloody pulp at their own game. Now I am in the process of eviscerating every bit of leftist pseudoscience written in the past 150 years. It will take me a while to build the 100 or so people that can construct propertarian arguments but at that point we are the equivalent of the anti-frankfurt school.
And so forgive me if I frequently digress from stoic analytic purity and go slumming, seeking street fights with the left’s kleptocracy of deceit.
But I’m looking for skulls to drink from.
You, the left, thought you were winning rather than that we were just biding our time, hoping you would learn. Sorry. You didn’t learn. We are failed parents and you’re the family black sheep. You’re the alcoholic, the drug user, the impulsive criminal, and the sociopath. and the social-climbing daughter. That’s all. A cult of kleptocracy.
So, We don’t want your consent, your agreement, your approval, or your opinion. We want your silence, submission, punishment, eviction, or death. Which of those we levy against you dependent upon your choice of silence, departure, or death.
You cannot meet us on the field of truth.
You cannot meet us on the field of propaganda.
You cannot meet us on the field of war.
You can only meet us in the market of voluntary exchanges. Because that is the only field we will leave you.
So we have a message for you: productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange between the classes or it is easier, and cheaper to return you to servitude, serfdom or slavery.
You are weaker. You will always be weaker.
And we know this. And so do you.
You’re done. There won’t be another election for you to win.
Because you taught us that you are not ready for adulthood, nor liberty, nor peerage.
— Curt Doolittle,
The Philosophy of Aristocracy, The Propertarian Institute
-
The ‘Talk’: Why We Are Stooping to the Left’s Level
In person i am a gentleman. But I learned a lot from Hayek’s pristine, gentlemanly, german failure with Keynes: never give the enemy an inch out of grace. We aren’t Victorians. This is a street fight. A brawl. And I use broken bottles, brass knuckles, clubs, knives, guns, and every other weapon I can get my hands on. And so do all of us in the various New Right groups.
When the left, via Alinsky, took the battle to the streets, they broke with our ancient european tradition and adopted the techniques of the peasantry. That’s’ all well and good for them – until they realized in this election that we gave up on our Victorianism and stooped to their level. And the alt-right beat them to a bloody pulp at their own game. Now I am in the process of eviscerating every bit of leftist pseudoscience written in the past 150 years. It will take me a while to build the 100 or so people that can construct propertarian arguments but at that point we are the equivalent of the anti-frankfurt school.
And so forgive me if I frequently digress from stoic analytic purity and go slumming, seeking street fights with the left’s kleptocracy of deceit.
But I’m looking for skulls to drink from.
You, the left, thought you were winning rather than that we were just biding our time, hoping you would learn. Sorry. You didn’t learn. We are failed parents and you’re the family black sheep. You’re the alcoholic, the drug user, the impulsive criminal, and the sociopath. and the social-climbing daughter. That’s all. A cult of kleptocracy.
So, We don’t want your consent, your agreement, your approval, or your opinion. We want your silence, submission, punishment, eviction, or death. Which of those we levy against you dependent upon your choice of silence, departure, or death.
You cannot meet us on the field of truth.
You cannot meet us on the field of propaganda.
You cannot meet us on the field of war.
You can only meet us in the market of voluntary exchanges. Because that is the only field we will leave you.
So we have a message for you: productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange between the classes or it is easier, and cheaper to return you to servitude, serfdom or slavery.
You are weaker. You will always be weaker.
And we know this. And so do you.
You’re done. There won’t be another election for you to win.
Because you taught us that you are not ready for adulthood, nor liberty, nor peerage.
— Curt Doolittle,
The Philosophy of Aristocracy, The Propertarian Institute
-
THE ‘TALK’: WHY ARE WE STOOPING TO THE LEFT’S LEVEL In person i am a gentleman.
THE ‘TALK’: WHY ARE WE STOOPING TO THE LEFT’S LEVEL
In person i am a gentleman. but i learned a lot from Hayek’s pristine, gentlemanly, german failure with Keynes: never give the enemy an inch out of grace.
we aren’t Victorians. this is a street fight. a brawl. and i use broken bottles, brass knuckles, clubs, knives, guns, and every other weapon I can get my hands on. And so do all of us in the various New Right groups.
When the left, via Alinsky, took the battle to the streets, they broke with our ancient european tradition and adopted the techniques of the peasantry.
that’s’ all well and good for them – until they realized in this election that we gave up on our Victorianism and stooped to their level.
And the alt right beat them to a bloody pulp at their own game.
Now I am in the process of eviscerating every bit of leftist pseudoscience written in the past 150 years. It will take me a while to build the 100 or so people that can construct propertarian arguments but at that point we are the equivalent of the anti-frankfurt school.
And so forgive me if I frequently digress from stoic analytic purity and go slumming, seeking street fights with the left’s kleptocracy of deceit.
But I’m looking for skulls to drink from.
You, the left, thought you were winning rather than that we were just biding our time, hoping you would learn. Sorry. You didn’t learn. We are failed parents and you’re the family black sheep. You’re the alcoholic, the drug user, the impulsive criminal, and the sociopath. and the social-climbing daughter. That’s all. A cult of kleptocracy.
So, We don’t want your consent, your agreement, your approval, or your opinion. We want your silence, submission, punishment, eviction, or death. Which of those we levy against you dependent upon your choice of silence, departure, or death.
You cannot meet us on the field of truth.
You cannot meet us on the field of propaganda.
You cannot meet us on the field of war.
You can only meet us in the market of voluntary exchanges. Because that is the only field we will leave you.
So we have a message for you: productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange between the classes or it is easier, and cheaper to return you to servitude, serfdom or slavery.
You are weaker. You will always be weaker.
And we know this. And so do you.
You’re done. There won’t be another election for you to win.
Because you taught us that you are not ready for adulthood, nor liberty, nor peerage.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-11 23:06:00 UTC
-
(just a reminder. i am not a racist although i am definitely a classist. i am no
(just a reminder. i am not a racist although i am definitely a classist. i am not white supremacist. my position is that we white people discovered a revolutionary technology (what we call empirical truth) that when combined with sovereignty, allowed us to ‘calculate’ adaptation faster than all other forms of social order. And that we used this technology to conquer and domesticate humans for fun and profit. And that all people, in all tribes, and all races, should love and advance their kin. i do not want to be bucketed with the racists. i do not want to be bucketed with the white supremacists. i consider myself a social scientist who uses the historical structure of philosophy to write in the only language of social science: natural law. i am happy to commiserate with my fellows. and i love my people above all others. but the fact of the matter is – and I know this infuriates the racists and supremacists – that i am happy if you can use my work for nationalist purposes. and i hope that all people from all races and nations and tribes use my work. but “I got no hate” for anyone except maybe my ex-wife’s lawyer and one particularly smarmy venture capitalist. so if you can use my stuff that’s great. but if you want me to legitimize bitching about others instead of defending yourselves, i’m just not going to do it. i have just as much interest in aristocracy for every other tribe as I do for my own. let a thousand nations bloom. let’s transcend the beast man and reach for the stars.)
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-11 21:48:00 UTC
-
NO. NUMERIC ACCOUNTS DO NOT CONTAIN MONEY (everything you need to know about mon
NO. NUMERIC ACCOUNTS DO NOT CONTAIN MONEY
(everything you need to know about money but were too ignorant to ask)
All credit-money consists entirely of promises – not reserves not assets – just promises. Promises are made using presumptions about the future. If the future that those promises were envisioned in, disappears, then those promises CANNOT be fulfilled. People with ‘accounts’ never had ‘money’ – they had ‘promises of possible money’. All credit money consists of nothing but promises of possible money. period. end of story.
So when some vast number of promise-money disappears, that means that the possible future disappeared. The money never existed. The money never had the opportunity to exist. The promises cannot be fulfilled.
This is why the entire economic system is confusing to ordinary people. The only money you have is the money that you could use if the government disappeared tomorrow for good. Everything else is just a stock certificate for an investment in a company that is fully leveraged, and has only a little cash, but can issue new stock certificates at will, diluting the value of each previous stock certificate.
The US government is a highly leveraged corporation and each dollar bill is a stock certificate, and each dollar of credit money is a promise of future stock certificates if you can fulfill you promises.
THIS DESCRIBES THE TRUE (SCIENTIFIC) CONTENT OF WHAT YOU CONSIDER MONEY.
1 – Money-Proper (commodity money).
2 – Note-Money (notes issued against 100% reserve deposits)
3 – Fractional-Reserve-Money (notes issued against x% reserve deposits) (promises)
4 – Credit Money (stock certificates issued against promises of future money) (promises)
5 – Fiat Money (Stock certificates in the tax returns on a state, as a monopoly, and enforced by law.) (more reliable promises)
6 – Debt Instruments (too many to list – all sorts of debt) (less reliable promises)
7 – Debt Default (insurance) Instruments (too many to list) (insurance against failed promises)
8 – Shares of common stock with mandatory dividends (gambling on performance) (somewhat reliable promises)
9 – Shares of Common Stock, in public companies (gambling on gullibility of other gamblers). (totally unreliable promises)
Money is money. Everything else is just a promise. Promises are only as good as the people promising them’s ability to predict the future.
And we know how good we are at predicting the future: foolishly optimistic.
The western miracle is largely the result of conquering and selling off the American continent, the benefits of burning off stored petroleum products, and a three thousand five hundred years of evolving the technology we call accounting, empirical science, and the natural common law of contract.
You are, we are, I am, heavily invested in a highly leveraged corporation under the assumption that we can continue to out-invent competing nations, in the next generation as successfully as we have out-invented them in the past 500 years, since we invented the technology of empiricism, and conquered the American continent.
The entire ‘progressive’ program hinges on the assumption that we can continue to *invent* marginal differences in technology faster than competitors do – despite the fact that we no longer hold a monopoly on the technology that makes rapid invention possible: accounting, empiricism, and empirical contract law.
So for example, just as Apple is making almost all its money on an iPhone, but if the iPhone era ends, the apple stock (and income) will crash; we Americans and Europeans, are heavily invested in stock certificates and promises of future stock certificates if we are able to continue to invent new technologies (in all their forms) faster than our competitors who now possess our same technologies.
This is the basic argument conservatives have been unable to make over the past century. And you (we) were told that the source of our prosperity was democracy. This is false. Democracy is a useful means of distributing the windfall profits from 3500 years of western evolution of the technology of empiricism (truth telling) and the conquest and sale of a continent. We call that the cultural equivalent of winning the lottery. And the American system of government and our entire economy, are based on the likelihood that we will win another lottery. Despite the fact that we have only won three of them in 3500 years:
1) the combination of wheel, horse, and bronze enabled us to conquer Eurasia, because of the technology of mobility and armor.
2) the Greek invention of truth, reason, and proto-science combined with the discovery of local silver mines.
3) the English invention of empiricism and science, combined with the discovery of a continent of primitives.
That’s it. It’s not more complicated than that.
Progressives are always wrong. Conservatives are always incompetent at communication. Together it’s been a catastrophe.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-11 18:17:00 UTC
-
NO. MORALITY IS AS OBJECTIVE AS THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES (propertarian basics) No,
NO. MORALITY IS AS OBJECTIVE AS THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES
(propertarian basics)
No, moral decidability is perfectly objective. Pseudo-moral norms may or man not be in fact moral. Subjective moral bias, may or may not be in fact moral. But moral rules are not subjective. It’s that your moral intuitions consist of possible truths combined with, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and outright deceit.
Morality is a purely scientific discipline. The purpose of the scientific method is to eliminate the various falsehoods from our imaginations and our speech.
We don’t like that morality is scientific, any more than we liked that science disproved our religious beliefs. But our moral intuitions and our moral beliefs are just as false as our assumptions about the religious statements and pre-scientific era assumptions.
If you think morality is subjective you are just as ridiculous as flat-earthers, and theological fundamentalists. There isn’t any difference except the excuses that you use. You just use different excuses.
So deal with it. There is very little difference between your presumption of moral subjectivity and moral dictate. Instead, morality is objectively scientific and we just lie a lot to get away with lots of falsehoods in this era like we did the past eras.
There is only one silver and one golden rule: Do nothing to impose a cost upon that which others have imposed a cost to create or accumulate. And therefore limit your actions to those that consist entirely of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, limited to productive externalities. The evolutionary function of morality is to aggressively prohibit the free riding in its various forms so that we preserve the incentive to cooperate, because with the expense of the human life form, it is only through cooperation in the production of calories in all their forms, that we defeat the dark forces of entropy, time, and ignorance.
That’s it. Morality is as scientific as are the physical sciences with the only difference being that because we possess memories, we are able to borrow and lend cooperative efforts across time. We have the ability to ‘calculate’ using memory by means that the universe cannot.
But otherwise we are not different from any other form of organized matter in the universe: we are bound by the physical rules of it. And those that disobey those rules are extinct, or out gunned, germ-ed, steel-ed, norm-ed, and institution-ed, cultured, and genetic-ed, by those what obey them more closely.
Period. End of argument. Social Science is SOLVED.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-11 17:10:00 UTC
-
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: DEMOCRACY, POPULATION DENSITY, AND COMMONS (important concepts
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: DEMOCRACY, POPULATION DENSITY, AND COMMONS
(important concepts)
As a general rule, roughly doubling population density gains a 15% increase in both all goods and all bads. Why? Because the opportunity cost decreases.
That should be pretty obvious.
But now, let’s take a look at what happens to Commons: normative, institutional, and physical.
They get cheaper. But they also get less valuable. Becuase the primary commons that produces returns is just density.
But what happens to commons in non-urban areas: they get expensive, and they get more important. Because what sustains a population in the production of consumption, generations (families); goods, services, and information; commons, institutions, and territory.
This explains the very great difference between cities, suburbs, and rural areas: government produces commons, under the perception of uniform cost and value to humans when the value of commons is determined by the difficulty in creating them, preserving and maintaining them, and the cost of infractions gainst them.
We have the electoral college to ensure that the large states that have such discount on commons production cannot overwhelm the smaller states with smaller budgets, or smaller populations or smaller territories.
But what we do NOT have is votes within states determined by opportunity costs: population density.
Yet we tax people by income which to some degree reflects population density, because income is determined largely by that density, because opportunities are determined by that density.
Now there is a trade-off between the ‘cheapness’ of opportunities for CONSUMPTION in the city versus the expense of opportunities for INVESTMENT in the suburban and rural areas.
I hadn’t really given this much thought in the past although it’s intuitively obvious that the electoral college is necessary to prevent the people living off cheap commons in cities to force harm to the people in lower density places with expensive commons.
But since the entire purpose of government is the production of commons then it’s only logical: we lack a means of calculating the differences in these invisible differences in opportunity costs, and that without compensating for density, we are harming the suburban and rural areas.
Now, of course, we could say that rural and suburban areas don’t matter, but the truth is that cities are dysgenic IQ sinks, cultural conflict generators, and debt increasers, as well as helpful marketplaces
And that the reason that we immigrated so many people into this country after 1803’s Louisiana Purchase was to fill up the west with people, so that we could hold the territory in case the Europeans decided to come back and take it again.
Because you only hold territory as both a resource and as a buffer against competitors if it’s full enough of people to do so.
if votes were weighted by county by population density that would ameliorate the differences between the different opportunity costs.
Now is this going to happen? Unlikely. So the alternative is secession so that regions, states, and localities can produce with government that which government is necessary to produce: commons.
And my alternative is to convert government from a monopoly to a market for the production of commons so that groups can produce local commons that they desire without the interference of others.
May a thousand nations bloom.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-11 08:26:00 UTC