Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • POETRY AND RHYME AS INSTITUTIONS OF NORMATIVE LAW There is a reason why we want

    POETRY AND RHYME AS INSTITUTIONS OF NORMATIVE LAW

    There is a reason why we want to restore BOTH truthfulness AND Poetry with Rhyme:

    Just as our ancient ancestors chose our intellectual (druidic / historian) leadership by their abilities to remember, our more recent intellectual leadership was sorted out by their use of poetry and meter.

    So if we speak testimonially, in rhyme and meter, we will ‘sort’ by speech as did our historical and prehistorical ancestors.

    And like our ancestors these words, in rhyme and verse, truth to to the core, will work their way into the commons vernacular as normative law.

    ( I will work more on this but I seem to have solved the problem of both truthful speech, and art, poetry, and literature that troubled me so seriously in the early days.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-24 04:41:00 UTC

  • Privilege as a Commons

    [C]ritics of privilege allege that it is unearned, and therefore unfair. Well, part of that’s true, so far as it goes. I didn’t earn my privilege. I inherited most of it. But I do pay to maintain it. And I must pay to add to it, so that I may pass on more to my children.Every time I’m extended privilege, I’m necessarily given the opportunity to abuse it.

    When I go into a store, say, and am not followed around by security, I’m given the opportunity to steal. By foregoing that opportunity, I’m bearing an opportunity cost, and in so doing, paying for my privilege, and at the same time, maintaining it as a commons for others like me to enjoy.

    When I am pulled over by a policeman, and am polite and cooperative rather than belligerent and reactive, not only do I purchase a better outcome for myself, but for everyone who resembles me (in whatever way.)

    Every time I seek to do my share, rather than to shirk; to pay my way, rather than to free ride; to give, rather than take; I pay into the privilege bank. I can only ever cash in a fraction of that. But if I can count on others like me to do likewise, we all come out ahead.

    Now, if someone would be willing to bear those costs, but their coethnics are not, or are less willing than others, that’s unfortunate for them.

    But if they demand the same privilege, it is they who are demanding something unearned, and that their coethnics have not demonstrated a willingness to pay for, or at least an equal willingness to pay for. They are demanding that others take a risk for their benefit in extending them privilege; one that has not been shown to be a good risk but rather, a bad one, one not worth the cost of taking.

    If you want privilege, then pay for its construction as a commons. But do not attack those who do and demand that they share their privilege with you, and offer nothing in return.

    Now some might object that this is “collectivism” or “collective responsibility” and we should instead only judge anyone as individuals.

    But that is not a reasonable objection nor a reasonable suggestion.

    I don’t hold anyone accountable for the misdeeds of people who resemble them. But I can’t necessarily tell them apart. There is a cost involved in telling them apart. It takes time, effort, energy, resources, etc… And even then, there is risk, because it’s not foolproof.

    Now, if someone doesn’t want to be profiled, or discriminated against, there are three ways they can realistically attack this issue.

    They can help make it easier (and therefore less costly) for me to distinguish them from less reputable elements by using signals (dress, mannerisms, speech etc…) which demonstrate that they are not a threat, that they are successful, reliable, etc…

    They can increase the value of what they can OFFER me so that I have more incentive to invest in telling them apart.

    Or they can suppress the misbehavior of the disreputable element within their community themselves to reduce the NEED for me to tell them apart; to reduce the risk for me of failing to tell them apart.

    But to simply demand that I presume they are not part of that element, when I have no way of knowing whether they are part of that element or not, is to demand that I take a risk. And even if that risk is a good risk, and worth my while in their case, that demand includes the demand I extend the same benefit of the doubt to all others. And that is not worth my while.

    This is, so far as I can tell, an accurate and truthful (though not necessarily full) account of what social justice warriors are talking about when they talk about “privilege.”

    It’s nothing to be ashamed of. And when they rally and shame you over your privilege, they are behaving as a spoiled child behaves when it throws a temper tantrum, and for the same reason. They want you to give them something but they don’t want to give you anything in return. So they resort to moral, emotional and social blackmail, hoping you will give them what they want to leave you alone.

    But they never will leave you alone, because as long as this method works, they will never quit using it, never quit making demands, never quit throwing tantrums like bratty children.

    Never give in.

    Reposted from Eli Harman:
    Privilege as a Commons

  • Privilege as a Commons

    [C]ritics of privilege allege that it is unearned, and therefore unfair. Well, part of that’s true, so far as it goes. I didn’t earn my privilege. I inherited most of it. But I do pay to maintain it. And I must pay to add to it, so that I may pass on more to my children.Every time I’m extended privilege, I’m necessarily given the opportunity to abuse it.

    When I go into a store, say, and am not followed around by security, I’m given the opportunity to steal. By foregoing that opportunity, I’m bearing an opportunity cost, and in so doing, paying for my privilege, and at the same time, maintaining it as a commons for others like me to enjoy.

    When I am pulled over by a policeman, and am polite and cooperative rather than belligerent and reactive, not only do I purchase a better outcome for myself, but for everyone who resembles me (in whatever way.)

    Every time I seek to do my share, rather than to shirk; to pay my way, rather than to free ride; to give, rather than take; I pay into the privilege bank. I can only ever cash in a fraction of that. But if I can count on others like me to do likewise, we all come out ahead.

    Now, if someone would be willing to bear those costs, but their coethnics are not, or are less willing than others, that’s unfortunate for them.

    But if they demand the same privilege, it is they who are demanding something unearned, and that their coethnics have not demonstrated a willingness to pay for, or at least an equal willingness to pay for. They are demanding that others take a risk for their benefit in extending them privilege; one that has not been shown to be a good risk but rather, a bad one, one not worth the cost of taking.

    If you want privilege, then pay for its construction as a commons. But do not attack those who do and demand that they share their privilege with you, and offer nothing in return.

    Now some might object that this is “collectivism” or “collective responsibility” and we should instead only judge anyone as individuals.

    But that is not a reasonable objection nor a reasonable suggestion.

    I don’t hold anyone accountable for the misdeeds of people who resemble them. But I can’t necessarily tell them apart. There is a cost involved in telling them apart. It takes time, effort, energy, resources, etc… And even then, there is risk, because it’s not foolproof.

    Now, if someone doesn’t want to be profiled, or discriminated against, there are three ways they can realistically attack this issue.

    They can help make it easier (and therefore less costly) for me to distinguish them from less reputable elements by using signals (dress, mannerisms, speech etc…) which demonstrate that they are not a threat, that they are successful, reliable, etc…

    They can increase the value of what they can OFFER me so that I have more incentive to invest in telling them apart.

    Or they can suppress the misbehavior of the disreputable element within their community themselves to reduce the NEED for me to tell them apart; to reduce the risk for me of failing to tell them apart.

    But to simply demand that I presume they are not part of that element, when I have no way of knowing whether they are part of that element or not, is to demand that I take a risk. And even if that risk is a good risk, and worth my while in their case, that demand includes the demand I extend the same benefit of the doubt to all others. And that is not worth my while.

    This is, so far as I can tell, an accurate and truthful (though not necessarily full) account of what social justice warriors are talking about when they talk about “privilege.”

    It’s nothing to be ashamed of. And when they rally and shame you over your privilege, they are behaving as a spoiled child behaves when it throws a temper tantrum, and for the same reason. They want you to give them something but they don’t want to give you anything in return. So they resort to moral, emotional and social blackmail, hoping you will give them what they want to leave you alone.

    But they never will leave you alone, because as long as this method works, they will never quit using it, never quit making demands, never quit throwing tantrums like bratty children.

    Never give in.

    Reposted from Eli Harman:
    Privilege as a Commons

  • Likelihood vs. Frequency

    [M]any people conflate likelihood with frequency. For example, they point out how infrequent Muslim terror attacks are and they make fun of you for even mentioning such an unlikely possibility. There are far more likely ways for you to die, car accident, petty crime, cancer, heart disease, etc… etc… So why are you worried about Islamic terrorism? You’re just an old fuddy duddy, and probably a bigot. But the likelihood of Muslim terror attacks is not in question. We know now for a certainty that as long as Muslims and westerners continue to mix and mingle, a small but significant minority of Muslims will attack western governments, infrastructure, military, and civilians (but especially civilians) with the aim of inflicting as many casualties or as much damage as possible. Unless something changes, however, those attacks will remain infrequent enough that you probably won’t be caught up in one. But something IS changing, the number and proportion of Muslims in western nations is changing. The number and proportion of Muslims in western counties is increasing. The ONLY reason anyone mentions the infrequency of their terror attacks (under the duplicitous guise of unlikeliness) is to JUSTIFY increasing their numbers still further. And so the frequency of attacks will rise. And your likelihood of dying or being maimed in one will rise with it. And if the number and proportion of Muslims in western nations keeps increasing, they will eventually have options other than to engage in random attacks with a near certainty of being caught or killed themselves. There will be other objects within their reach, supremacy, rule, subjugation, victory. And we can be just as certain that they will reach for those as we are certain now that they will continue to attack us, because that is their aim. They have said so. This is what those who sow this confusion advocate. This is what those who peddle this lie demand. They have CHOSEN treason to the west and its destruction of their own free will and they have had every reason and opportunity to KNOW that this is what they were choosing. Whether the west prevails, or Islam, their fate is sealed; unless they repent of their lies and make good the damage they have wrought. REPOSTED FROM: Eli Harman https://hyperborial.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/likelihood-vs-frequency/

  • Likelihood vs. Frequency

    [M]any people conflate likelihood with frequency. For example, they point out how infrequent Muslim terror attacks are and they make fun of you for even mentioning such an unlikely possibility. There are far more likely ways for you to die, car accident, petty crime, cancer, heart disease, etc… etc… So why are you worried about Islamic terrorism? You’re just an old fuddy duddy, and probably a bigot. But the likelihood of Muslim terror attacks is not in question. We know now for a certainty that as long as Muslims and westerners continue to mix and mingle, a small but significant minority of Muslims will attack western governments, infrastructure, military, and civilians (but especially civilians) with the aim of inflicting as many casualties or as much damage as possible. Unless something changes, however, those attacks will remain infrequent enough that you probably won’t be caught up in one. But something IS changing, the number and proportion of Muslims in western nations is changing. The number and proportion of Muslims in western counties is increasing. The ONLY reason anyone mentions the infrequency of their terror attacks (under the duplicitous guise of unlikeliness) is to JUSTIFY increasing their numbers still further. And so the frequency of attacks will rise. And your likelihood of dying or being maimed in one will rise with it. And if the number and proportion of Muslims in western nations keeps increasing, they will eventually have options other than to engage in random attacks with a near certainty of being caught or killed themselves. There will be other objects within their reach, supremacy, rule, subjugation, victory. And we can be just as certain that they will reach for those as we are certain now that they will continue to attack us, because that is their aim. They have said so. This is what those who sow this confusion advocate. This is what those who peddle this lie demand. They have CHOSEN treason to the west and its destruction of their own free will and they have had every reason and opportunity to KNOW that this is what they were choosing. Whether the west prevails, or Islam, their fate is sealed; unless they repent of their lies and make good the damage they have wrought. REPOSTED FROM: Eli Harman https://hyperborial.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/likelihood-vs-frequency/

  • THE MOST COMMON STUPID QUESTION I GET FROM SOFTWARE TEAMS: Attempting to find a

    THE MOST COMMON STUPID QUESTION I GET FROM SOFTWARE TEAMS:

    Attempting to find a scientific or axiomatic rule for what is an economic problem.

    All programming is approximately the same. The question is only the performance demanded, cost of production, cost of maintenance, and cost of change.

    If you break software into responsibilities and understand the difference between resident(executables), and instances(node.js), temporary(scripts), and transactional (database) then from that point it’s all economics.

    In general, a software developer wants to reduce his costs, unless he has only his self-interests in mind and not the results of his actions.

    Never hire anyone who says they want to stay on top of tech. People stay on top of tech if they’re good at producing results.

    Those questions that are not economic – and there aren’t many of them – are empirical. And empirical tests defeat theoretical rules in all cases at all times.

    The rules in software are the lifetime of execution, responsibility, design patterns in UI, middle, and db, and costs. That’s it.

    Risk used to be significant in the past. The major risk today is not the software itself which has become relatively cheap, but the business model we anticipate with the software, and the success in providing transaction cost of use that justifies the cost of the use.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-22 08:49:00 UTC

  • WESTERN TRUTH VS THE LIE OF SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION (important piece) (synthesizing)

    WESTERN TRUTH VS THE LIE OF SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION

    (important piece) (synthesizing) (readable)

    —“Constructionism involves the creation of a product to show learning. It is believed by constructivists that representations of physical and biological reality, including race, sexuality, and gender, as well as tables, chairs and atoms are socially constructed. Kant, Garns, and Marx were among the first to suggest such an ambitious expansion of the power of ideas to inform the material realities of people’s lives.”—

    1) To act successfully one must act correspondingly (truth).

    2) We discover correspondence: Personally, Socially, Contractually, Legally, Scientifically, Aesthetically.

    3) We can VALUE those discoveries more, or less, as they assist or impede our group evolutionary strategy.

    4) We can construct norms (including myths, and falsehoods) to convey those values(truth or falsehood) we attach to our discoveries.

    5) But we will pay the cost of any values that we attach to discoveries,

    Race, sexuality, gender, chairs, tables, and atoms may or may not be socially discovered. They are absolutely socially valued.

    But they correspond to reality.

    Because reality does not care about our values.

    And those that value falsely pay the cost, and those that value truthfully, reap the reward.

    Truth determines velocity of everything in a culture. Not only the economy, and therefore our wealth, but the velocity of our evolution, and even our ability to survive in competition with other societies.

    The best way to harm a people is to teach them to value a falsehood. You poison the mind, which poisons other minds. You leave the body alive, but kill the civilization.

    The only reason social construction is available is because a new technology for information distribution has become available, and the discovery of a means of correcting the falsehood faster than it spreads is impossible.

    Whether it be the oral tradition and travel in prehistory, writing and pulpit and roads in the ancient world, or printing and shipping in the modern, or media and propaganda in the present, the cost of deception is always higher than the cost of falsehood.

    Ergo we must develop institutions that correct falsehoods over time, and bear the intertemporal cost of the damage done by those falsehoods.

    Thankfully the west has the most responsive technology for defeating lies and deceits and propaganda: natural, judge-discovered, common law, with universal standing and universal application. The first successful suit creates the prohibition against falsehoods (frauds).

    We merely must defend the informational commons by requiring a warranty of due diligence against informational harm, as we do with every other kind of harm.

    What prevented us from institutionalizing the requirement for truthful speech in the commons was a failure to understand how to test for truthfulness.

    Now that we have this test, we can enforce an involuntary warranty of due diligence against any speech placed into the commons.

    And while it may take some skill to test, just as grammar and meaning take some skill to test, and while it may take some greater explanation to employ these tests, they are not altogether that difficult if we restore grammar, logic, and rhetoric, and merely add operational language (e-prime) to that list.

    If we can teach mathematics which is not intuitive, we can teach grammar, logic, rhetoric, and operational language, which is. These are the two languages with which we describe the world: the mathematical for the inanimate non-sentient and physical, and the operational for the animate, sentient, and intellectual.

    The tests of due diligence for the warranty of truthfulness are:

    1 – categorical consistency (identity and non-conflation)

    2 – internal consistency (logical and non-contradictory)

    3 – external consistency (external correspondence)

    4 – operational consistency ( existential possibility)

    5 – moral consistency ( voluntary possibility )

    6 – scope consistency (limits, full accounting, and parsimony)

    If we test any utterance against these six criteria, then it is almost impossible to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit, without intentionally engaging in deceit.

    And just as reason in the ancient world’s greek civilization raised man out of ignorance, and British science in the modern world rescued us from mysticism, poverty and disease, truthfulness in the present world will have as great an effect on mankind – both disruptively, and beneficially.

    We are the men of the west. Truth is both our most powerful weapon in defeat of the dark forces of time, ignorance, and deceit, and our most powerful technology of Transcendence.

    With truth we shall become the gods we seek.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-22 02:36:00 UTC

  • Exterioridad y economía keynesiana en el contexto de la información y decidibilidad.

    [E]n la teoría de los precios, exterioridad es un beneficio o pérdida no incluido en el precio del intercambio. Nosotros podemos debatir si la economía del estudio de inversión producción distribución intercambio y consumo o si la economía es el modelo bajo el cual todas las ciencias sociales desde la metafísica, la psicología, epistemología, la ética, sociología, ley, política, estrategia evolutiva de grupos y conflictos. -Todo el modelo todo espectro filosófico. Ahí permanece un conflicto entre lo pseudo científico (la epistemología moderna, la psicología freudiana, la sociología boaziana, la ciencia política marxista) y las ciencias sociales científicas que operan todas dentro de la misma rama de investigación que llamamos “economía (estudio de la información, incentivos y cooperación). Ya que yo entiendo que la economía es una disciplina de ciencias sociales que funciona como una competencia científica ante las seudo ciencias sociales. Yo trabajo con información en su totalidad, no sólo con los precios- Yo expando modelos económicos para incluir información de todo tipo las consecuencias en los cambios de esa información Siento que estoy bastante acertado al afirmar que ésta es la formulación correcta de las reglas generales sobre las cuales debemos trabajar para descubrir en esa disciplina que de forma arcaica llamamos economía La información es el modelo las ciencias físicas y la información es a su vez el modelo en las ciencias sociales. El hecho de que Mises, Popper, y Hayek no hayan traído esta idea a fruición, Y por que, es Uno de los grandes fracasos intelectuales de nuestra historia si solo porque permitió que las seudo ciencias que compiten ganen predominancia en la academia Y en consecuencia esas ideas se hayan vuelto políticas. La exterioridad: en contexto En el contexto de mi charla Y en el contexto de mis argumentos, no hay diferencia entre los aumentos y disminuciones del capital Y Las transferencias voluntarias o involuntarias de dicho capital, por información en vez de ese subconjunto de información que nosotros llamamos precios. En otras palabras, la regla general que describen la exterioridad de los precios no es sino un subconjunto de la regla general que describen la exterioridad de toda la información. Las consecuencias no previstas son cuestión del enfoque de la intención, no una cuestión sobre el enfoque de Las consecuencias de la información. (si usted entiende de esto yo realmente no requiero una disculpa porque yo estoy al tanto de que este asunto no es trivial. Yo cometo muy pocos errores. Pero siempre estoy constreñido por los límites el tiempo Y las circunstancias yo no puedo explicar cada concepto sobre los cuales apoyo en cada oración que digo. Simplemente lo imposible) Ahora hablemos sobre el keynesianismo. Así como yo dependo del información para producir condiciones de decidibilidad, yo también explico las diferencias entre la ley natural (mengeriana/austríaca), el imperio de la ley(Friedman/chicago), y las ramas la ley discrecional (keynes/freshwater) de la teoría económica. En cada uno de tus sistemas teóricos sus creadores dependieron de un método de decidibilidad (o lo que en matemáticas se conoce como el axioma de la elección) para poder justificar el uso de su modelo sobre los otros modelos con los cuales competían. El grupo de la ley natural asume la posición de no hacer daño (no mentir usando el sistema de precios). El grupo el imperio de la ley toma la posición que hacer el menor daño posible, de modo tal que no estamos mintiendo Sino corrigiendo problemas de información bajo imperio de la ley. Así que si hay un intercambio entre la desinformación que proveemos Y El sistema de información que llamamos precios e incentivos. Busca restaurar una condición de ley natural. El grupo de los keynesianos toman la posición de que cualquier desinformación que producimos ahora produce grandes ganancias que no es sólo inmoral resistir usar esa desinformación Sino que poco probable que cualquier consecuencia negativa que produzcamos será superada por ganancias inter temporales, te podemos reparar esos problemas que causamos luego con las ganancias. Bajo este modelo economía, la decidibilidad en teoría económica que no es provista por modelos axiomático es provista por axiomas de elección: por ejemplo: valoración subjetiva. Este asunto de la decidibilidad no ha sido resuelto aún, sin embargo la idea general austriaca de que no podemos hacer trampa de facto, parece ser correcta por el hecho de que la duración Y severidad de las depresiones económicas es cada vez mayor. Ésta es la razón por la cual el debate se ha calmado tanto desde la crisis del 2008. El establishment depende de la decidibilidad keynesiana para justificar aumentos en la tasa de consumo a expensas de la degradación normativa, genética, e institucional del capital, bajo en la sumir que es posible alcanzar la igualdad genética, normativa, Y posiblemente institucional. Lo cual si lo vemos esa forma claramente falso. Sólo ha sido desde el abandono mundial de la economía marxista, Y la aceptación mundial del capitalismo consumidor Y del crédito fiduciario, que la ventaja tecnológica de la civilización occidental nos ha podido dejar asumir que la tendencia del crecimiento constante está disponible para nosotros sin consecuencias Inter temporales. Keynesianismo en el contexto de la decidibilidad Así que, cuando yo hablo del keynesianismo, ese Es el método de decidibilidad al cual yo me refiero. De nuevo, yo tiendo a no cometer errores. Yo cometo muchos errores de brevedad, tiene muchas consecuencias no previstas por mi brevedad. Pero toda la comunicación en común requiere de perdida de información O su carga nos silenciará. Salud Traducido por Alberto R ZambranoU disponible en http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2016/08/17/externalities-and-keynesian-economics-in-context-of-information-and-decidability/

  • Exterioridad y economía keynesiana en el contexto de la información y decidibilidad.

    [E]n la teoría de los precios, exterioridad es un beneficio o pérdida no incluido en el precio del intercambio. Nosotros podemos debatir si la economía del estudio de inversión producción distribución intercambio y consumo o si la economía es el modelo bajo el cual todas las ciencias sociales desde la metafísica, la psicología, epistemología, la ética, sociología, ley, política, estrategia evolutiva de grupos y conflictos. -Todo el modelo todo espectro filosófico. Ahí permanece un conflicto entre lo pseudo científico (la epistemología moderna, la psicología freudiana, la sociología boaziana, la ciencia política marxista) y las ciencias sociales científicas que operan todas dentro de la misma rama de investigación que llamamos “economía (estudio de la información, incentivos y cooperación). Ya que yo entiendo que la economía es una disciplina de ciencias sociales que funciona como una competencia científica ante las seudo ciencias sociales. Yo trabajo con información en su totalidad, no sólo con los precios- Yo expando modelos económicos para incluir información de todo tipo las consecuencias en los cambios de esa información Siento que estoy bastante acertado al afirmar que ésta es la formulación correcta de las reglas generales sobre las cuales debemos trabajar para descubrir en esa disciplina que de forma arcaica llamamos economía La información es el modelo las ciencias físicas y la información es a su vez el modelo en las ciencias sociales. El hecho de que Mises, Popper, y Hayek no hayan traído esta idea a fruición, Y por que, es Uno de los grandes fracasos intelectuales de nuestra historia si solo porque permitió que las seudo ciencias que compiten ganen predominancia en la academia Y en consecuencia esas ideas se hayan vuelto políticas. La exterioridad: en contexto En el contexto de mi charla Y en el contexto de mis argumentos, no hay diferencia entre los aumentos y disminuciones del capital Y Las transferencias voluntarias o involuntarias de dicho capital, por información en vez de ese subconjunto de información que nosotros llamamos precios. En otras palabras, la regla general que describen la exterioridad de los precios no es sino un subconjunto de la regla general que describen la exterioridad de toda la información. Las consecuencias no previstas son cuestión del enfoque de la intención, no una cuestión sobre el enfoque de Las consecuencias de la información. (si usted entiende de esto yo realmente no requiero una disculpa porque yo estoy al tanto de que este asunto no es trivial. Yo cometo muy pocos errores. Pero siempre estoy constreñido por los límites el tiempo Y las circunstancias yo no puedo explicar cada concepto sobre los cuales apoyo en cada oración que digo. Simplemente lo imposible) Ahora hablemos sobre el keynesianismo. Así como yo dependo del información para producir condiciones de decidibilidad, yo también explico las diferencias entre la ley natural (mengeriana/austríaca), el imperio de la ley(Friedman/chicago), y las ramas la ley discrecional (keynes/freshwater) de la teoría económica. En cada uno de tus sistemas teóricos sus creadores dependieron de un método de decidibilidad (o lo que en matemáticas se conoce como el axioma de la elección) para poder justificar el uso de su modelo sobre los otros modelos con los cuales competían. El grupo de la ley natural asume la posición de no hacer daño (no mentir usando el sistema de precios). El grupo el imperio de la ley toma la posición que hacer el menor daño posible, de modo tal que no estamos mintiendo Sino corrigiendo problemas de información bajo imperio de la ley. Así que si hay un intercambio entre la desinformación que proveemos Y El sistema de información que llamamos precios e incentivos. Busca restaurar una condición de ley natural. El grupo de los keynesianos toman la posición de que cualquier desinformación que producimos ahora produce grandes ganancias que no es sólo inmoral resistir usar esa desinformación Sino que poco probable que cualquier consecuencia negativa que produzcamos será superada por ganancias inter temporales, te podemos reparar esos problemas que causamos luego con las ganancias. Bajo este modelo economía, la decidibilidad en teoría económica que no es provista por modelos axiomático es provista por axiomas de elección: por ejemplo: valoración subjetiva. Este asunto de la decidibilidad no ha sido resuelto aún, sin embargo la idea general austriaca de que no podemos hacer trampa de facto, parece ser correcta por el hecho de que la duración Y severidad de las depresiones económicas es cada vez mayor. Ésta es la razón por la cual el debate se ha calmado tanto desde la crisis del 2008. El establishment depende de la decidibilidad keynesiana para justificar aumentos en la tasa de consumo a expensas de la degradación normativa, genética, e institucional del capital, bajo en la sumir que es posible alcanzar la igualdad genética, normativa, Y posiblemente institucional. Lo cual si lo vemos esa forma claramente falso. Sólo ha sido desde el abandono mundial de la economía marxista, Y la aceptación mundial del capitalismo consumidor Y del crédito fiduciario, que la ventaja tecnológica de la civilización occidental nos ha podido dejar asumir que la tendencia del crecimiento constante está disponible para nosotros sin consecuencias Inter temporales. Keynesianismo en el contexto de la decidibilidad Así que, cuando yo hablo del keynesianismo, ese Es el método de decidibilidad al cual yo me refiero. De nuevo, yo tiendo a no cometer errores. Yo cometo muchos errores de brevedad, tiene muchas consecuencias no previstas por mi brevedad. Pero toda la comunicación en común requiere de perdida de información O su carga nos silenciará. Salud Traducido por Alberto R ZambranoU disponible en http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2016/08/17/externalities-and-keynesian-economics-in-context-of-information-and-decidability/

  • ¿Por que me importa la clase trabajadora?

    [P]orque nosotros somos compatibles, y necesitamos el uno del otro. Alguno de nosotros trabajamos, otros trabajamos en gerencia, algunos calculamos y diseñamos, algunos de nosotros organizamos, y algunos otros decidimos qué organizar, calcular, diseñar, administrar y sobre que cosas trabajar. Es cuando nosotros determinamos de forma exitosa un método por el cual cada uno de nosotros se beneficia al cooperar con el resto, en vez de cooperar con otros al competir por oportunidades para hacer trabajos, administración, cálculos, organización y decisión que no somos sólo compatibles sino necesarios el uno para el otro. La aristocracia opera de forma empírica: Por medio de la compatibilidad. La compatibilidad en la reproducción (la unidad familiar como una unidad reproductiva), en materia de defensa (la jerarquía del mando), en producción (la jerarquía de la organización de la producción), y en política (la jerarquía de las clases) mientras preservamos y mantenemos la participación voluntaria en la selección de parejas, al unir ejércitos, al participar en la fuerza laboral, y entre las distintas divisiones de los poderes del estado. La compatibilidad voluntaria es un método que sirve para poder “calcular” el resultado óptimo de Nash sobre la marcha. El modelo de la aristocracia occidental fue científico. Hasta el siglo XX. A mi me importa la clase trabajadora porque ELLOS SON LOS QUE PELEAN. ¿Por que? Porque las élites crean la diferencia competitiva para las clases trabajadoras, y si ellas pelean por sus élites, y eligen las élites correctas, entonces tendrán que vivir bajo mejores condiciones que otras clases que eligen ser gobernados por élites peores. El problema con la forma de vida americana es que los socialistas creen que han hecho una franquicia exitosa a partir de la apropiación del movimiento de los trabajadores y han convertido compatibilidad en incompatibilidad. Los socialistas eligieron dividirnos y conquistarnos, obligando a nuestras élites a abandonar a sus clases trabajadoras. Si queremos una revolución, debemos actuar de forma compatible. Debemos tener élites que decidan y organicen, clases medias que calculen y teoricen, y clases trabajadoras que administren y actúen. Mi nombre es Legión. Y somos muchos Curt Doolittle. La Filosofía de la Aristocracia El Instituto Propietarista. Traducido por Alberto R. Zambrano U.