Form: Outline

  • POSSIBILITIES OF THICK, ARISTOCRATIC, AND THIN LIBERTARIANISM (worth repeating)

    POSSIBILITIES OF THICK, ARISTOCRATIC, AND THIN LIBERTARIANISM

    (worth repeating)

    1) Thick / Humanist / Psychological / Left libertarianism is a luxury good, and it is neither scientifically or rationally formulated, remaining true to the psychological tradition of classical liberalism. We CAN form a polity under Thick libertarianism, as long as luxuries are voluntarily constructed, requiring voluntary participation, rather than mandated.

    2) Aristocratic Egalitarian / Scientific libertarianism is necessary and sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity in the absence of the state. It is both rationally and scientifically formulated. We CAN form a polity under aristocratic egalitarianism.

    3) Thin / Ghetto / libertine / Brutalist libertarianism is necessary but INSUFFICIENT for the formation of a voluntary polity in the absence of the state. It is rationally but not scientifically formulated. And furthermore, would be the target of conquest and oppression by all nearby polities. We CANNOT form a polity under rothbardian, ghetto, libertinism.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-29 05:52:00 UTC

  • HEADLINE IN ALL CAPS (context tag in lower

    <start type=’Publication Style Post’>

    HEADLINE IN ALL CAPS

    (context tag in lower case) (audience tag) (importance tag)

    Attribution to author if someone else.

    Introduction / positioning.

    —“block quotes”—

    Closing.

    Source link.

    </end>


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-29 04:34:00 UTC

  • WHAT LIBERTARIANS HAVE RIGHT AND WRONG WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT 1) Property + Voluntar

    WHAT LIBERTARIANS HAVE RIGHT AND WRONG

    WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT

    1) Property + Voluntary, fully informed, warrantied, exchange, free of negative externality.

    2) Contract + Common Law + Universal Standing

    3) Competing Insurance Companies for the purpose of Regulation.

    4) Economics: Voluntary organization of Production + Incentives + Competition

    WHAT CONSERVATIVES HAVE RIGHT (AND WE HAVE WRONG)

    1) Morality (‘Durkheimian Man’) requires many institutional means of coercion into respect for, and observation of, and enforcement of, property rights.

    2) The Nuclear and Absolute Nuclear Family as the minimum organizational unit of any social order.

    WHAT THE PROGRESSIVES HAVE RIGHT (AND WE HAVE WRONG)

    1) Observance and enforcement of the property rights necessary for the voluntary organization of production, when one is not ABLE to participate in it, requires compensation for the effort of observance and enforcement. (Although they would never articulate it in this manner. The right of exclusion must be respected, but respecting it is a cost.)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-27 09:34:00 UTC

  • A.E.L. PRINCIPLES 1) Property rights are obtained by entering into a contract fo

    A.E.L.

    PRINCIPLES

    1) Property rights are obtained by entering into a contract for reciprocal insurance of one another’s property by the promise of violence to defend it.

    2) Property is that which humans demonstrate as their property: that which they act to obtain by homesteading or voluntary exchange, with

    the expectation of possession. (See categories of property below)

    3) Voluntary Exchange: Moral and ethical exchanges are defined as voluntary, fully informed, warrantied, exchange, free of negative externality.

    4) Morality is objective and is prohibition on the transgression of the property of another : the necessary prohibition on free riding for any cooperative organism. We evolved these instincts, and our extreme intolerance for ‘cheating’ out of necessity, and these instincts remain. (see criminal, unethical, and immoral propositions below)

    5) The law must sufficiently mirror known morality at any given time to suppress demand for an authority to suppress immoral actions, or the violence that results from immoral actions. While criminal and ethical standards are universal and objective, moral prohibitions consist of (a) necessary prohibitions on involuntary imposition of costs, (b) ritual and signal costs that members of a polity are use for signaling commitment, and which should not be enforced by law, but can be enforced by ostracization, (c) errors that are not reducible to free riding, and cannot be enforced by law, nor should they be enforced by ostracization.

    6) Transaction costs of immoral and unethical behavior increase with a decrease in capacity to defend against them. Therefore it is not rational to expect people to choose a voluntary polity in the absence of a state without sufficient suppression of transaction costs to compete with the costs of the state that does suppress either the immoral and unethical behavior, or the violence that results from immoral and unethical behavior. AS such the moral and ethical standard embodied in the common law, necessary for a polity is determined by the relative transaction costs and opportunities of different polities. Since the highest trust polities demonstrate both the most suppression of unethical and immoral actions, as well as the highest velocity of risk, production and trade, it is an empirical question as to the level of suppression of unethical and immoral action that is required to maintain a competitive polity. But in no case will people rationally choose an unethical polity, and they never have. The opposite is true: unethical polities have been the victims of conquest, oppression and genocide.

    CATEGORIES OF PROPERTY

    Humans demonstrably act as though there are four categories of property:

    I. Several (Personal) Property

    – Personal property: “Things an individual has a Monopoly Of Control over the use of.”

    – Physical Body

    – Actions and Time

    – Memories, Concepts and Identities: tools that enable us to plan and act. In the consumer economy this includes brands.

    – Several Property: Those things we claim a monopoly of control over.

    II. Interpersonal (Relationship) Property

    Cooperative Property: “relationships with others and tools of relationships upon which we reciprocally depend.”

    – Mates (access to sex/reproduction)

    – Children (genetic reproduction)

    – Familial Relations (security)

    – Consanguineous Relations (tribal and family ties)

    – Racial property (racial ties)

    – Status and Class (reputation)

    III. Institutional (Community) Property

    Institutional Property: “Those objects into which we have invested our forgone opportunities, our efforts, or our material assets, in order to aggregate capital from multiple individuals for mutual gain.”

    – Informal (Normative) Institutions: Our norms: manners, ethics and morals. Informal institutional property is nearly impossible to quantify and price. The costs are subjective and consists of forgone opportunities.

    – Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion), Government, Laws. Formal institutional property is easy to price. costs are visible. And the productivity of the social order is at least marginally measurable.

    IV. Artificial Property

    Artificial Property: “Can a group issue specific rights to members?”

    – Shares in property: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (claims for partial ownership)

    – Monopoly Property such as intellectual property. (grants of monopoly within a geography)

    – Trademarks and Brands (prohibitions on fraudulent transfers within a geography).

    FORMS OF INVOLUNTARY TRANSFER

    1-Direct Interpersonal

    – Murder

    – Violence

    – Destruction

    – Theft

    – Theft by Fraud

    – Theft by Fraud by omission

    2 – Indirect Interpersonal

    – Theft by Impediment

    – Theft by Externalization

    3 – Indirect Social

    – Theft by Free riding

    – Theft by privatization

    – Theft by socialization

    4 – Conspiratorial Social

    – Theft by Rent seeking

    – Theft by Complexity, Rule, Process or Obscurantism

    – Theft by Extortion

    5 – Conquest

    – Murder, Destruction and Theft by War

    – Immigration

    – Conversion


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-20 16:53:00 UTC

  • GOT IT. Q&A DIALOGS RATHER THAN EXPLANATIONS. Image Title of the concept Stateme

    GOT IT. Q&A DIALOGS RATHER THAN EXPLANATIONS.

    Image

    Title of the concept

    Statement of the concept

    Dialog.

    [Historical confirmation.]

    [Historical failure (reversal).]

    Poem.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-11 11:51:00 UTC

  • THE VALUE OF DIFFERENT COLLEGE DEGREES THE BEST 1% DEGREES (most likely to assis

    THE VALUE OF DIFFERENT COLLEGE DEGREES

    THE BEST 1% DEGREES

    (most likely to assist in becoming wealthy)

    1. Engineering / Computer Science

    2. Economics / Commerce / MBA / (Bachelor’s) Business Administration (BBA)

    3. Law / Politics

    4. Finance / Accounting

    THE BEST-RIGHT OUT OF COLLEGE DEGREES

    (you can’t go wrong if you want to always have earning potential)

    1. Engineering: $80-90,000 (of any kind at all, and there are LOTS of kinds)

    2. Computer Science/ Mathematics: $100,000 (engineering where you don’t get your hands dirty)

    3. Pharmacy Pharmaceutical Sciences and Administration: $105,000

    THE BEST GUARANTEED INCOMES (INSULATED OVER THE LONG TERM)

    1. Universal Demand: Doctor / Medical Specialist / Nurse

    2. Protected Class: Teachers and Professors and other Bureaucrats.

    USELESS DEGREES

    1. Liberal Arts. (You know who you are.)

    THE WORST DEGREES – DEGREES THE HARM YOUR LIFE’S TRAJECTORY

    (you will be poor unless you are a statistical anomaly. These degrees mean you will earn 30K or less per year. When the median income is 48K. This means you are barely better off than working minimum wage.)

    (Institutionalized Motherhood – Stay home and have kids instead.)

    Human Services and Community Organization

    Social Work

    Counseling Psychology

    Early Childhood Education

    (institutionalized childhood – save your money and don’t go to college – just volunteer or go to training schools)

    Drama and Theater Arts

    Studio Arts

    Visual and Performing Arts

    (Institutionalized introspection – you don’t need education.)

    Theology and Religious Vocations

    (fields flooded with applications and which do not require skills)

    Communication Disorders Sciences and Service

    Health and Medical Preparatory Programs

    CLOSING COMMENT

    IMHO, you are better off taking the lightest possible load, at one of the least expensive and least difficult colleges, in one of the top four fields than you are taking any load in any other degree. You MUST learn to use abstractions at some point. Your intuitions and perceptions are limited to what any other animal can make use of. Only through using abstractions – the mental equivalent of tools – will other humans pay you for your time. Everything else is a useless commodity by comparison.

    (I studied fine art. But god gave me gifts. I could tolerate self-enlightenment.)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-07 00:59:00 UTC

  • Arm the Ukrainians with small arms. Give them one nuke. Cut russia out of wire t

    Arm the Ukrainians with small arms.

    Give them one nuke.

    Cut russia out of wire transfer system.

    Cut russia out of visa mastercard amex system.

    Cut russia out of the internet.

    Close all wester airports to Russian airlines, and airlines that are owned by countries that do not also comply.

    Ban all Russian goods.

    Dump all rubles.

    Cancel all debts to russia.

    Sieze all russian assets.

    Compensate losers with those assets.

    There is plenty one can do.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-06 15:54:00 UTC

  • AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS: THE PROBLEM IS NOT ONE OF MATHEMATICS, BUT OF MORALITY 1) If

    AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS: THE PROBLEM IS NOT ONE OF MATHEMATICS, BUT OF MORALITY

    1) If you look at mainstream economics as the study of human behavior demonstrated by the record of human actions, then I think it’s an excellent means of conducting research in social science. And, by and large, that is what the economic community engages in, and how most of them describe their work. Because the canons of science suggest that such a claim is all that they can make.

    2) If you look at mainstream economics as the source of government policy which can be used to maximize all available opportunity for consumption, then some economists might argue that is true although a lot might also argue that their work is used for that purpose but should not be, since their science is too young to be used for that purpose.

    3) if you look at mainstream economics as a means by which to justify ‘dishonest socialism’ under the Keynesian model of forcible redistribution without control of the means of production, and a tool by which to undermine western exceptionalism, then it’s really not hard to make that argument.

    4) If you look at economics as the study of moral human cooperation, then austrian economics (or at least, praxeological analysis) exposes the immorality of political intervention in the economy and the consequences of that intervention over the long term. Unfortunately the progressive argument – which can only be settled empirically if and when we demonstrate that they are wrong by catastrophic failure – is that the short term good accomplished (the acceleration of the reproductive rates of the lower classes) compensates for any harm in the long term, and in the long term technology (and our supposed infinite wisdom) will solve that problem in the long run for us.

    CLOSING

    The problem is that under majority rule and monopoly government, we cannot allow the dishonest socialists, and moral and honest austrians to conduct their experiments in parallel. Were we able to divide our polity either internally (by class) or externally (by separate states) we could run this empirical test. I would assume that under that test the keynesian group would reproduce and generate consumption through reproduction that could not be matched by the innovation of the austrian group – since generating demand through innovation is more expensive a research program than generating demand through malthusian reproduction.

    Cheers.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-04 12:22:00 UTC

  • ARISTOCRATIC ORIGINS OF LIBERTY AND THE CIVIL SOCIETY Heroism: Status Through Cr

    ARISTOCRATIC ORIGINS OF LIBERTY AND THE CIVIL SOCIETY

    Heroism: Status Through Creating Change (metaphysics)

    Nation (an extended family)

    Nuclear Family (the organizational unit of society)

    Property (the means of cooperation on means)

    Common Law (the means of dispute resolution)

    Independent Judiciary (the defenders of civilization)

    Monarchy (veto power) (house 1)

    Aristocracy (dispute resolution between nations) (house 2)

    Nobility (commerce with in the nation) (house 3)

    Priesthood (redistribution within the nation) (house 4)

    Militia (ownership)

    Hospitaliers (care taking)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-01 05:47:00 UTC

  • ALTERNATIVE TO IMAGINARY, UNATTAINABLE AND IMPOSSIBLE TRUTH? Isn’t this more sen

    ALTERNATIVE TO IMAGINARY, UNATTAINABLE AND IMPOSSIBLE TRUTH?

    Isn’t this more sensible than an unknowable unattainable imaginary ‘truth’?

    THEORIES: correspondence with reality for desired use. A theory should map to reality (properties should correspond to reality), given the utility claimed by the author.

    TRUTH: performative: you testify that this theory does what you claim, just as you testify to any other statement you claim corresponds to reality. You claim (warranty) that your theory corresponds with reality for the purposes intended. You do not claim that there is not a better theory that more narrowly corresponds, because you never can. (Although at some point further precision becomes farcical.) All theories that correspond to reality for the purpose claimed are true.

    There is nothing novel here. What differs is that the execution of math, logic and science are not ethically constrained as the claims about math logic and science are. And even those claims are not as ethically constrained as economic, political, legal, ethics and moral claims are. So while it’s probably correct that Performative truth is ‘truth’ and everything else is some derivative thereof, there has simply been no reason to ‘correct’ math, logic, and science because the consequence of their ‘mystical language’ or ‘conveniences’ is not damaging. However, as we can see from the fact that we must have this argument, it’s not that their ‘mystical language’ abuse of truth as a matter of convenience does not produce damaging externalities. Because they do. Otherwise we would not have to correct this problem.

    CRITICAL PREFERENCE

    –“…clearly scientific inquiry is subject to economic limitations.”–

    It’s not that it’s subject to economic limitations, its whether or not following the least cost course leads EMPIRICALLY to the ‘truth’ more rapidly than alternatives (although I question the popperian use of that term for theories). I suspect that it does. And I want to see if it does. And I’m hoping someone has done some work on this. As far as I know it holds up.

    Given the choice between pursuing any N theories, will following the least cost experiment with the greatest explanatory power more likely lead to the truth. It would seem so. But I would like to see someone research and test that.

    –“You need to understand that there exists infinitely many internally consistent bodies of knowledge that have not been falsified.”–

    In any given context, this is demonstrably not true. It is true axiomatically but not empirically. We can STATE less than infinitely many theories. Much less than that number are semantically meaningful. Those that we can demonstrate are smaller still. Those that are falsifiable are smaller still. And the choice between those available options is quite small. I suspect that following the least expensive test with the greatest explanatory power is in fact, probabilistically, more likely to result in contributions to the ‘truth’.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-28 09:21:00 UTC