( … ) Well-Sitting – Resource Curse ( … ) Production (hinduism, christendom, japan, china) ( … ) Parasitism (organized crime, gypsies, everywhere) ( … ) Raiding (steppe, desert, russia) ( … ) Human Domestication and Farming ( europeanism, han-ism) ( … ) Conquest and Consumption (islam, globalism, semitism) ( … ) Undermining and destruction (judaism, communism) ( … )
( … ) Well-Sitting – Resource Curse ( … ) Production (hinduism, christendom, japan, china) ( … ) Parasitism (organized crime, gypsies, everywhere) ( … ) Raiding (steppe, desert, russia) ( … ) Human Domestication and Farming ( europeanism, han-ism) ( … ) Conquest and Consumption (islam, globalism, semitism) ( … ) Undermining and destruction (judaism, communism) ( … )
( … )
( … )
( … )
( … )
( … )
( … )
( … )
( … )
( … )
( … )
( … )
( … )
( … )
( … )
POLITICAL: THREE COERCIVE TECHNOLOGIES (Doolittle) The Three Coercive Technologies.
1) Force: Tool: Physical Coercion Benefit: Avoidance Benefit Strategic use: Rapid but expensive. “Seize opportunities quickly with a concentrated effort.”
2) Words: Tool: Verbal, Moral Coercion Benefit: Ostracization/Inclusion, and Insurance benefit Strategic Use: slow, but inexpensive. “Wait for opportunity by accumulating consensus.”
3) Exchange: Remunerative Coercion With Material Benefit – Strategic use: efficient in cost and time, only if you have the resources.III. STRATEGIC: POWER – THREE TYPES OF POWER Power is defined as possessing any of the various means by which to influence the probability of outcomes in a group or polity using one of THE THREE COERCIVE TECHNOLOGIES. Power is the ability to Influence, Coerce or Compel individuals or groups to act more according to one’s wishes than they would without the use of influence, coercion or compelling. There are only three forms of power possible:
1) Procedural Power: Political, Judicial, and Military Power (Soldiers, Judges, and Politicians) vs 2) Economic Power (people with wealth either earned or gained through tax appropriation). vs 3) Populist Power (Religion, Entertainment, Public Intellectuals) It is possible and often preferable to combine all three forms of power in order to coerce people most effectively. Conversely, it is possible and preferable to create an institutional framework in politics that restricts the ability to combine different forms of power in an effort to constrain power.
1) Limits: Via-Negativa: Procedural Power: Political, Judicial, and Military Power (Soldiers, Judges, and Politicians) vs 2) Possibilities: Via-Practica: Economic Power (people with wealth either earned or gained through tax appropriation). vs 3) Wants: Via-Positiva: Populist Power (Religion, Entertainment, Public Intellectuals) ( … )
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 and law (2) cult and religion, or (3) state and 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 the desire for the construct, and in the expression of that desire for the construct as a will to power. I frequently ask the same question: why do economists vary in the 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: 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.
1. Kinship System (oligarchy)(small nation-states), 2. Class System (informal institution – markets) or 3. Caste System (formal institution – religion and laws), Systems exist universally in all nations, states, and empires. Without exception. It’s arguable the entire world operates as a caste system with whites arguably the minority aristocracy, followed by East Asians, then Hindus, then steppes, then Arabs, then the darker races. The data in every walk of life agrees with it. Just how it is. We see it in the patterns of relations in every walk of life. Why? because of (a) kin selection, (b) reproductive desirability, (c) commercial desirability (d) political desirability. kinship systems show the least diversity, class the next most diverse. Now, is a caste system superior or inferior to a class system? Well, it depends upon the problems of managing the size of the underclass. The smaller the underclass the more useful kin and market orders. the larger the underclass the more useful the authoritarian and caste orders. All the warm climate states have the problem of the inability to reduce the relative size of the underclass and thereby create a voluntary organization of production using the proceeds of whatever they can produce with resources at hand. This means that any warm climate people unable to cull the lower classes will have permanent favelas and slums, and northern climes that eliminate lower classes will continue to prosper. There is a strange economics to the use of air conditioning. The hindus are … unnecessarily limited by the cast system and will do much better with the class system in the market order. However, it will mean (likely) degeneration into more Muslim frameworks more tolerable by leadership from the underclasses. Islam is suitable for rule of the ‘evil 80’s.’ Hinduism preserves the ability for a class to prevent expansion of rule by the evil 80’s.
THE ACCUMULATION AND CONSUMPTION OF CAPITAL CREATED THROUGH INCREASING AND DECREASING ORGANIZATION
Authoritarian Rule (war – Evolution ) Fascism (Authoritarianism) is the means by which we use the violence of the state to organize the entire society to solve a small, urgent, problem, of war, economic war, religious war, demographic war, or rapid economic transformation.
Minority Rule ( Evolution ) Oligarchy is the means by which we use the violence of the state to domesticate the unruly for profit, until they are no longer sufficiently unruly that they can obtain rule of law.
Rule of Law (reciprocity-Peak) Rule of law is the means by which we use the promise of violence of the state to force trades between the classes so that everyone achieves the best available without violating reciprocity (cooperation).
Majority Rule (devolution) Majority Rule (Democracy, Republican Democracy) is the means by which the majority of women and the underclass can use the violence of the state to extract rents from the productive classes who would otherwise invest them in long term monumental, institutional, genetic, and normative returns.
To the best of my knowledge the general argument that reflects the evidence is this: 1) The slower the rotation of elites, the more consistent the policies, the least ‘virtue signaling expenditure’, the least waste, and the least fragility. Consistent policy allows long-term low-cost investment in commons. Preserves knowledge in the administrators. 2) The longer-term the incentives the more capital will be accumulated in all its forms. So, Monarchies have the best intertemporal incentives, houses of ‘lords’ so to speak the next best, Westminster/German model parliaments the next, and democratically elected representatives in the American model the worst incentives. Germans seem to produce consistent policies, yet can still be removed from office. 3) Minorities face higher consequences if deposed from power than members of a majority, and they are easier to depose, so they have both incentive to rule well (reduce the cost of defense), and to maintain rule(preserve their investments). (The HAN, RUSSIANS/Muscovites), and the TEUTONS/Germanics understood this. The Europeans no longer do. They lost this sentiment in the world wars. Aside from Jefferson’s attempt to codify natural law in an extant document and order, America has been a very bad influence on the world since its revolution.) 4) The more thorough the rule of law, the higher the trust, the faster the economic velocity. So, Rule of law (common, judge-discovered, natural law) is more important in producing good policy than the form of government if the aristocracy (martial class) is large enough. If a professional bureaucracy can form prior to the expansion of the franchise, then Continental Law can function as well as Common Law with a smaller aristocracy (martial class). 5) So, most civilizations fail to defeat i) Malthus, ii) Rent Seekers(corruption), iii) Familism(corruption) for any one of these reasons: (a) inability to form a military/martial/nobility class capable of enforcing rule of law and profiting from its enforcement (Nobility). (b) inability to concentrate wealth without ever-expanding corruption (Homogeneity), (c) inability to direct proceeds to the production of commons(universalism), (d) inability to create a class capable of sustained policy development (minority control) So it’s not so much that it’s minority rule, but that it’s CONSISTENT rule, with intertemporal incentives, while still able to ‘throw the bums out’, with rule of law limiting their actions, and suppressing corruption. And minority rule tends to be more consistent. (And monarchies were more tolerant.) Net: incentives of representative governments constantly trying to hold to their positions produce the worst policy because they have the worst of all incentives: urgency and unaccountability. Reversal: If you are in a heterogeneous, tribal, familial, civilization, lacking a militia (universal military), and a large enough middle class to demand and require rule of law, and if you have its opposite (universal theocracy), and if you do not have harsh winters to reduce the size of the underclasses without invoking moral hazard, you will have a very difficult time creating prosperity compared to a homogenous, outbred, militial civilization, with harsh winters, and putative rule of law. Nobility makes an administrative class, makes a middle class makes a working class, makes an over-reproductive underclass, and rents expand by all classes until the civilization is fragile or stagnant and cannot respond to shocks or competitors.
What do conservatives, liberals, and libertarians believe is the hidden agenda of the other two political philosophies? Conservatives Conservatives believe in a meritocratic hierarchical society where a) there are as few ‘cheaters’ living off the efforts of others as is posible, b) that enfranchisement should be earned, c) that government should resolve conflicts not direct society d) that civic duties should be preferred to administrative bureaucracies. e) They believe a good society can best be created by norms, rather than laws. f) They view all property as individual, but wich we must put to collective ends. Jonathan Haidt has shown that conservatives treat all six moral codes equally. (liberty, care-taking, hierarchy, loyalty, purity, fairness) Libertarians Libertarians believe in a meritocratic non hierarchical society where there are as few cheaters as possible living off the efforts of others and that enfranchisement should be earned, and that government should be limited to resolving conflicts over property. They believe civic virtues will emerge from this society, and the government bureaucracy (correctly) is the source of all bad government, so that privatization should be used rather than public bureaucracy, whenever possible. Progressives (Liberals) Progressives believe in an egalitarian non hierarchical society where people produce what they can and that we redistribute from one another to one another as needed by way of the government. They believe all property is community property and that individuals are just temporary stewards of property in order to achieve what is best for the common good. They believe civic egalitarianism is best achieved through expansionary government that intervenes wherever possible in order to ensure equality of ends and means. Jonathan Haidt has shown that progressives (liberals) care only about two of the moral codes, and ignore the other four: fairness and care-taking. It’s Gender What may not be obvious to the average person is that these three groups represent a spectrum that expresses the different reproductive strategies of the genders, and that liberals on one end and conservatives on the other each skew toward gender lines. In fact, if women were not to vote, we would never have had a progressive government in our history. The female reproductive strategy is to give her child every opportunity to rise above his abilities. The male reproductive strategy is to ensure the competitiveness of the group by promoting the strongest. While these are generalizations, when we are talking about genders we are in fact, making very broad generalizations. And the data supports those generalizations. Our Institutions Could Not Tolerate The Change Our political sentiments are largely inherited, largely a function of gender and class. Or political system was invented when the church was the authority of all moral teaching, when our voting classes were all some version of protestants, when the state was restricted to the resolution of disputes. And when we were all small business people (farmers and shopkeepers) and so we were all market participants and there were very few ‘leeches’ in the system. The political system was originally structured by social class with the senate appointed from influential people, the house elected from business people (land owners) and the proletariat was uneducated if not illiterate. Our constitution was designed to limit the government to resolution of conflicts and to avoid prescription. And that political system did not survive the Louisiana purchase, the civil war, the inclusion of women, and the rapid immigration of non-protestants into the country as a means of filling the newly acquired continent, and as new citizens, their inclusion into the voting pool. The industrial revolution and the world wars that threw England’s empire into our hands was an opportunity for profit that we could not pass up . Each Ideology Fails So, that is why conservatives fail. Because they are attempting to recreate a political system that is insufficiently complex for the society we live in today. Liberals fail because the population disagrees with their economic and military program — justifiably so. But more importantly because they do not understand the relationship between the nuclear family, the military requirements of the empire, and the unique property of western civilization: non-corruption. Libertarians fail because their ethic is antithetical to both conservatives and liberals. WHile libertarians have the best grasp of economics, liberals wil disagree with the libertarian economic program and conservatives will disagree with the libertarian social program. All people reject cheating. Liberals see individualization of profits as cheating. Libertarians and conservatives see the redistribution of profits as cheating. Conservatives see immorality as cheating. We can try every permutation, but it’s all the same. In simple terms, liberal=society unified by law, libertarian=society unified by commerce, conservative=society unified by norms. The problem is that we are materially different in our desires and permanently so. So the problem is inventing new institutions that can accomodate the different factions now that we have expanded enfranchisement beyond market-participating males. And we know the lefts economic program is impossible. we know the conservative normative program is impossible. We know the libertarian normative and institutional program is impossible. So we devolve into moralistic banter rather than attempt to solve the problem of creating institutions that allow us to cooperate despite our differences. The Secret Of Western Civilization But I will let you in on a secret. This conflict is ancient. And can be answered by one question: why is it that a woman has a right to bear a child that she cannot on her own support? If you can answer that question you can solve the conflict between the conservatives and the liberals. because that one question is what drives it. The western manorial aristocratic economic system that is our heritage required that men demonstrate their fitness in order to gain access to land, and delayed childbirth so that women could work in the crafts. This process suppresses the breeding rates of the underclasses. The church likewise banned inbreeding which encourages early reproduction. THese two factors led to the advancement of western civilization as much as did the rule of law, science, and the division of powers. Conservatives are attempting still to restrain the breeding of the lower classes to those who can afford to support their own. Liberals are doing the opposite:they are encouraging all the breeding that is possible. These are just the masculine and feminine reproductive strategies of our distant ancestors writ large. Nothing more. So when you ask the question, what is it that separates the different political ideologies, almost everything you will hear is an elaborate form of justification: a ruse to distract you from this one underlying difference: should we allow everyone to breed if it means that the middle classes must suppress their breeding so that the lower classes may advance their breeding? Now if someone told you that this is the single most important factor in raising a civilization out of ignorance and poverty, and that it is impossible to build an egalitarian civil society otherwise, how would that affect your answer? How you answer that question is how you define your political preference. It’s really that simple.
—“There is a distinction between endocrinological & neurological conservatives, driven mostly by disgust, which tend to be within a SD left of the mean, and market driven (agency) conservatives who recognize cost on longer time-horizons & are able to organize a body law which facilitates the cooperation & trust, necessary for the functioning of enterprise. The former group are right for the âwrongâ reasons & the latter group are right as a matter of agency & incentive.”—Ferdinand Pizarro
( … )
The problem with today’s conservatism is that darwin and spencer were famous before the war, after the second world war, conservatism and eugenics were effectively banned from discourse, academy, and science. As such conservatives never (until perhaps 2000) restored empirical discourse to conservatism, because it is antithetical to the experiment with democracy. This changed incrementally beginning in 76, through the 80s, and aggressively since 2000, and more aggressively since 2008. **Sovereignty requires reciprocity Reciprocity requires rule of law (tort), jury(thang, senate, house of lords, supreme court), and an independent judiciary. Rule of law forces markets, since it incrementally suppresses each innovation in parasitism. Markets cause hierarchies, because they are necessary to voluntarily organize production. Markets are eugenic, because they are empirical means of testing industry and impulse. But they make possible liberty for those with property, freedom for those who labor, and subsidy for those who impose no costs on sovereignty, liberty, freedom, or property.** Domestication Man domesticated the human animal after he had learned to domesticate the non-human animal. And he did so by the same means. And the result in both domestication of the human and non human animal is the same: eugenics. Conservatives Most conservatives do not write philosophy, they run businesses, or write history, economics, science, and law. (I write because I was successful enough in multiple businesses to spend my time writing full time.) Conservatives are actively suppressed in academy and media. This has been true since the end of the war and teh rise of the Frankfurt School, and the Postmodern school, both of which were necessary after the failure of marxist pseudoscience. (a pseudoscience marx died knowing, since he stopped writing as soon as he read the Mengerians, and kept silent only to keep the checks coming in from Engels.)
( … )
( … )
(… )
( … )
POLITICAL: THREE COERCIVE TECHNOLOGIES (Doolittle) The Three Coercive Technologies.
1) Force: Tool: Physical Coercion Benefit: Avoidance Benefit Strategic use: Rapid but expensive. “Seize opportunities quickly with a concentrated effort.”
2) Words: Tool: Verbal, Moral Coercion Benefit: Ostracization/Inclusion, and Insurance benefit Strategic Use: slow, but inexpensive. “Wait for opportunity by accumulating consensus.”
3) Exchange: Remunerative Coercion With Material Benefit – Strategic use: efficient in cost and time, only if you have the resources.III. STRATEGIC: POWER – THREE TYPES OF POWER Power is defined as possessing any of the various means by which to influence the probability of outcomes in a group or polity using one of THE THREE COERCIVE TECHNOLOGIES. Power is the ability to Influence, Coerce or Compel individuals or groups to act more according to one’s wishes than they would without the use of influence, coercion or compelling. There are only three forms of power possible:
1) Procedural Power: Political, Judicial, and Military Power (Soldiers, Judges, and Politicians) vs 2) Economic Power (people with wealth either earned or gained through tax appropriation). vs 3) Populist Power (Religion, Entertainment, Public Intellectuals) It is possible and often preferable to combine all three forms of power in order to coerce people most effectively. Conversely, it is possible and preferable to create an institutional framework in politics that restricts the ability to combine different forms of power in an effort to constrain power.
1) Limits: Via-Negativa: Procedural Power: Political, Judicial, and Military Power (Soldiers, Judges, and Politicians) vs 2) Possibilities: Via-Practica: Economic Power (people with wealth either earned or gained through tax appropriation). vs 3) Wants: Via-Positiva: Populist Power (Religion, Entertainment, Public Intellectuals) ( … )
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 and law (2) cult and religion, or (3) state and 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 the desire for the construct, and in the expression of that desire for the construct as a will to power. I frequently ask the same question: why do economists vary in the 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: 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.
1. Kinship System (oligarchy)(small nation-states), 2. Class System (informal institution – markets) or 3. Caste System (formal institution – religion and laws), Systems exist universally in all nations, states, and empires. Without exception. It’s arguable the entire world operates as a caste system with whites arguably the minority aristocracy, followed by East Asians, then Hindus, then steppes, then Arabs, then the darker races. The data in every walk of life agrees with it. Just how it is. We see it in the patterns of relations in every walk of life. Why? because of (a) kin selection, (b) reproductive desirability, (c) commercial desirability (d) political desirability. kinship systems show the least diversity, class the next most diverse. Now, is a caste system superior or inferior to a class system? Well, it depends upon the problems of managing the size of the underclass. The smaller the underclass the more useful kin and market orders. the larger the underclass the more useful the authoritarian and caste orders. All the warm climate states have the problem of the inability to reduce the relative size of the underclass and thereby create a voluntary organization of production using the proceeds of whatever they can produce with resources at hand. This means that any warm climate people unable to cull the lower classes will have permanent favelas and slums, and northern climes that eliminate lower classes will continue to prosper. There is a strange economics to the use of air conditioning. The hindus are … unnecessarily limited by the cast system and will do much better with the class system in the market order. However, it will mean (likely) degeneration into more Muslim frameworks more tolerable by leadership from the underclasses. Islam is suitable for rule of the ‘evil 80’s.’ Hinduism preserves the ability for a class to prevent expansion of rule by the evil 80’s.
THE ACCUMULATION AND CONSUMPTION OF CAPITAL CREATED THROUGH INCREASING AND DECREASING ORGANIZATION
Authoritarian Rule (war – Evolution ) Fascism (Authoritarianism) is the means by which we use the violence of the state to organize the entire society to solve a small, urgent, problem, of war, economic war, religious war, demographic war, or rapid economic transformation.
Minority Rule ( Evolution ) Oligarchy is the means by which we use the violence of the state to domesticate the unruly for profit, until they are no longer sufficiently unruly that they can obtain rule of law.
Rule of Law (reciprocity-Peak) Rule of law is the means by which we use the promise of violence of the state to force trades between the classes so that everyone achieves the best available without violating reciprocity (cooperation).
Majority Rule (devolution) Majority Rule (Democracy, Republican Democracy) is the means by which the majority of women and the underclass can use the violence of the state to extract rents from the productive classes who would otherwise invest them in long term monumental, institutional, genetic, and normative returns.
To the best of my knowledge the general argument that reflects the evidence is this: 1) The slower the rotation of elites, the more consistent the policies, the least ‘virtue signaling expenditure’, the least waste, and the least fragility. Consistent policy allows long-term low-cost investment in commons. Preserves knowledge in the administrators. 2) The longer-term the incentives the more capital will be accumulated in all its forms. So, Monarchies have the best intertemporal incentives, houses of ‘lords’ so to speak the next best, Westminster/German model parliaments the next, and democratically elected representatives in the American model the worst incentives. Germans seem to produce consistent policies, yet can still be removed from office. 3) Minorities face higher consequences if deposed from power than members of a majority, and they are easier to depose, so they have both incentive to rule well (reduce the cost of defense), and to maintain rule(preserve their investments). (The HAN, RUSSIANS/Muscovites), and the TEUTONS/Germanics understood this. The Europeans no longer do. They lost this sentiment in the world wars. Aside from Jefferson’s attempt to codify natural law in an extant document and order, America has been a very bad influence on the world since its revolution.) 4) The more thorough the rule of law, the higher the trust, the faster the economic velocity. So, Rule of law (common, judge-discovered, natural law) is more important in producing good policy than the form of government if the aristocracy (martial class) is large enough. If a professional bureaucracy can form prior to the expansion of the franchise, then Continental Law can function as well as Common Law with a smaller aristocracy (martial class). 5) So, most civilizations fail to defeat i) Malthus, ii) Rent Seekers(corruption), iii) Familism(corruption) for any one of these reasons: (a) inability to form a military/martial/nobility class capable of enforcing rule of law and profiting from its enforcement (Nobility). (b) inability to concentrate wealth without ever-expanding corruption (Homogeneity), (c) inability to direct proceeds to the production of commons(universalism), (d) inability to create a class capable of sustained policy development (minority control) So it’s not so much that it’s minority rule, but that it’s CONSISTENT rule, with intertemporal incentives, while still able to ‘throw the bums out’, with rule of law limiting their actions, and suppressing corruption. And minority rule tends to be more consistent. (And monarchies were more tolerant.) Net: incentives of representative governments constantly trying to hold to their positions produce the worst policy because they have the worst of all incentives: urgency and unaccountability. Reversal: If you are in a heterogeneous, tribal, familial, civilization, lacking a militia (universal military), and a large enough middle class to demand and require rule of law, and if you have its opposite (universal theocracy), and if you do not have harsh winters to reduce the size of the underclasses without invoking moral hazard, you will have a very difficult time creating prosperity compared to a homogenous, outbred, militial civilization, with harsh winters, and putative rule of law. Nobility makes an administrative class, makes a middle class makes a working class, makes an over-reproductive underclass, and rents expand by all classes until the civilization is fragile or stagnant and cannot respond to shocks or competitors.
What do conservatives, liberals, and libertarians believe is the hidden agenda of the other two political philosophies? Conservatives Conservatives believe in a meritocratic hierarchical society where a) there are as few ‘cheaters’ living off the efforts of others as is posible, b) that enfranchisement should be earned, c) that government should resolve conflicts not direct society d) that civic duties should be preferred to administrative bureaucracies. e) They believe a good society can best be created by norms, rather than laws. f) They view all property as individual, but wich we must put to collective ends. Jonathan Haidt has shown that conservatives treat all six moral codes equally. (liberty, care-taking, hierarchy, loyalty, purity, fairness) Libertarians Libertarians believe in a meritocratic non hierarchical society where there are as few cheaters as possible living off the efforts of others and that enfranchisement should be earned, and that government should be limited to resolving conflicts over property. They believe civic virtues will emerge from this society, and the government bureaucracy (correctly) is the source of all bad government, so that privatization should be used rather than public bureaucracy, whenever possible. Progressives (Liberals) Progressives believe in an egalitarian non hierarchical society where people produce what they can and that we redistribute from one another to one another as needed by way of the government. They believe all property is community property and that individuals are just temporary stewards of property in order to achieve what is best for the common good. They believe civic egalitarianism is best achieved through expansionary government that intervenes wherever possible in order to ensure equality of ends and means. Jonathan Haidt has shown that progressives (liberals) care only about two of the moral codes, and ignore the other four: fairness and care-taking. It’s Gender What may not be obvious to the average person is that these three groups represent a spectrum that expresses the different reproductive strategies of the genders, and that liberals on one end and conservatives on the other each skew toward gender lines. In fact, if women were not to vote, we would never have had a progressive government in our history. The female reproductive strategy is to give her child every opportunity to rise above his abilities. The male reproductive strategy is to ensure the competitiveness of the group by promoting the strongest. While these are generalizations, when we are talking about genders we are in fact, making very broad generalizations. And the data supports those generalizations. Our Institutions Could Not Tolerate The Change Our political sentiments are largely inherited, largely a function of gender and class. Or political system was invented when the church was the authority of all moral teaching, when our voting classes were all some version of protestants, when the state was restricted to the resolution of disputes. And when we were all small business people (farmers and shopkeepers) and so we were all market participants and there were very few ‘leeches’ in the system. The political system was originally structured by social class with the senate appointed from influential people, the house elected from business people (land owners) and the proletariat was uneducated if not illiterate. Our constitution was designed to limit the government to resolution of conflicts and to avoid prescription. And that political system did not survive the Louisiana purchase, the civil war, the inclusion of women, and the rapid immigration of non-protestants into the country as a means of filling the newly acquired continent, and as new citizens, their inclusion into the voting pool. The industrial revolution and the world wars that threw England’s empire into our hands was an opportunity for profit that we could not pass up . Each Ideology Fails So, that is why conservatives fail. Because they are attempting to recreate a political system that is insufficiently complex for the society we live in today. Liberals fail because the population disagrees with their economic and military program — justifiably so. But more importantly because they do not understand the relationship between the nuclear family, the military requirements of the empire, and the unique property of western civilization: non-corruption. Libertarians fail because their ethic is antithetical to both conservatives and liberals. WHile libertarians have the best grasp of economics, liberals wil disagree with the libertarian economic program and conservatives will disagree with the libertarian social program. All people reject cheating. Liberals see individualization of profits as cheating. Libertarians and conservatives see the redistribution of profits as cheating. Conservatives see immorality as cheating. We can try every permutation, but it’s all the same. In simple terms, liberal=society unified by law, libertarian=society unified by commerce, conservative=society unified by norms. The problem is that we are materially different in our desires and permanently so. So the problem is inventing new institutions that can accomodate the different factions now that we have expanded enfranchisement beyond market-participating males. And we know the lefts economic program is impossible. we know the conservative normative program is impossible. We know the libertarian normative and institutional program is impossible. So we devolve into moralistic banter rather than attempt to solve the problem of creating institutions that allow us to cooperate despite our differences. The Secret Of Western Civilization But I will let you in on a secret. This conflict is ancient. And can be answered by one question: why is it that a woman has a right to bear a child that she cannot on her own support? If you can answer that question you can solve the conflict between the conservatives and the liberals. because that one question is what drives it. The western manorial aristocratic economic system that is our heritage required that men demonstrate their fitness in order to gain access to land, and delayed childbirth so that women could work in the crafts. This process suppresses the breeding rates of the underclasses. The church likewise banned inbreeding which encourages early reproduction. THese two factors led to the advancement of western civilization as much as did the rule of law, science, and the division of powers. Conservatives are attempting still to restrain the breeding of the lower classes to those who can afford to support their own. Liberals are doing the opposite:they are encouraging all the breeding that is possible. These are just the masculine and feminine reproductive strategies of our distant ancestors writ large. Nothing more. So when you ask the question, what is it that separates the different political ideologies, almost everything you will hear is an elaborate form of justification: a ruse to distract you from this one underlying difference: should we allow everyone to breed if it means that the middle classes must suppress their breeding so that the lower classes may advance their breeding? Now if someone told you that this is the single most important factor in raising a civilization out of ignorance and poverty, and that it is impossible to build an egalitarian civil society otherwise, how would that affect your answer? How you answer that question is how you define your political preference. It’s really that simple.
—“There is a distinction between endocrinological & neurological conservatives, driven mostly by disgust, which tend to be within a SD left of the mean, and market driven (agency) conservatives who recognize cost on longer time-horizons & are able to organize a body law which facilitates the cooperation & trust, necessary for the functioning of enterprise. The former group are right for the âwrongâ reasons & the latter group are right as a matter of agency & incentive.”—Ferdinand Pizarro
( … )
The problem with today’s conservatism is that darwin and spencer were famous before the war, after the second world war, conservatism and eugenics were effectively banned from discourse, academy, and science. As such conservatives never (until perhaps 2000) restored empirical discourse to conservatism, because it is antithetical to the experiment with democracy. This changed incrementally beginning in 76, through the 80s, and aggressively since 2000, and more aggressively since 2008. **Sovereignty requires reciprocity Reciprocity requires rule of law (tort), jury(thang, senate, house of lords, supreme court), and an independent judiciary. Rule of law forces markets, since it incrementally suppresses each innovation in parasitism. Markets cause hierarchies, because they are necessary to voluntarily organize production. Markets are eugenic, because they are empirical means of testing industry and impulse. But they make possible liberty for those with property, freedom for those who labor, and subsidy for those who impose no costs on sovereignty, liberty, freedom, or property.** Domestication Man domesticated the human animal after he had learned to domesticate the non-human animal. And he did so by the same means. And the result in both domestication of the human and non human animal is the same: eugenics. Conservatives Most conservatives do not write philosophy, they run businesses, or write history, economics, science, and law. (I write because I was successful enough in multiple businesses to spend my time writing full time.) Conservatives are actively suppressed in academy and media. This has been true since the end of the war and teh rise of the Frankfurt School, and the Postmodern school, both of which were necessary after the failure of marxist pseudoscience. (a pseudoscience marx died knowing, since he stopped writing as soon as he read the Mengerians, and kept silent only to keep the checks coming in from Engels.)
( … )
( … )
(… )
( … )
Define MoralityDisambiguate Morality Morality = Rules of cooperation Positive morality ( … ) Negative morality ( … )
There exists only one universal moral law of sentient beings: Reciprocity. And it has been recorded since the dawn of writing in both via-positiva form as the golden rule, and in via-negativa form as the silver rule. What Is Reciprocity?
The Silver Rule (Presumption of Inequality)
Via-Negativa: Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you. In the Negative (Silver Rule, or via-negativa): The requirement to avoid the imposition of costs on that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in, without imposing costs upon that which others have likewise born costs to obtain an interest in. And;
The Golden Rule (Presumption of Equality)
Via-Positiva: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
In the Positive(Golden Rule, or via-positiva): the requirement that we limit our actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of the imposition of costs by externality, upon that which others have obtained by the same means. As determined by;
Either any change, or the total change, in the inventory that all parties both internal and external to the action have born costs to obtain an interest in, without imposition of costs upon others directly or indirectly by externality.
The one law of Reciprocity that we call Natural Law, is this:
“The only moral actions are those that consist exclusively of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, free of imposition of costs by externality upon the demonstrated investments of others.” So all displays, words, and deeds that are not immoral, are either amoral (not immoral) or moral (productive). This doesn’t answer the question, what is a good life rather than one that is not immoral. That answer is either Aryan (acheviment, excellence), Pagan (to die a good death), Heathen (to live in harmony with nature) or christian (to do good works of charity).
The natural law is (+)Sovereignty and (-)Reciprocity, in display word and deed, including reciprocity in speech (truthful speech) regardless of cost to the status(dominance, competence hierarch), within the limits of proportionality (in group defection) within the limits of the utility of cooperation (out groups). “Within the limits of the utility of cooperation.” There is no ideal. There are no ideals. There is only what satisfies demand for infallibility.
Limiting our display word and deed to: – Fully informed (truthful and complete); … – Regardless of cost to the status, competence, or dominance hierarchy. – Productive and; – Voluntary transfer (or exchange, or imposition of costs upon); – The Demonstrated interests of Others ; – Either directly or indirectly (by externality) – And liable and warrantied, within the limits of restitutability; … – Within the limit of incentive for in-group defection; … – Within The Limit of the Utility of future out-group Cooperation; – Eliminating the incentive of retaliation and retaliation cycles, – And imposition of costs upon the commons of trust by which others cooperate.
( … )
Try To Falsify:
(a) Goods and bads refer to caloric income or loss, existential or projected. (b) Morality refers to reciprocity. (c) Reciprocity a necessity of the physical universe. (d) The human biological reward system reacts like all others to gains(reduction of costs) and losses (costs). (e) Complete Reciprocity requires: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality. However we maintain fairly accurate assessments of one another’s cost benefit to us. (f) philosophical sophistry leads to undecidability on this subject is due largely to attempts to produce a via-positiva definition of morality – which is only possible for norms – instead of a via negativa definition: we can only know what is universally immoral (negative), what is moral(positive) is whatever is not immoral (negative). This is true for all knowledge, and why science defeated philosophy even in ethics and morality: because we can only know what is false, and trivially true, but anything that is not false and substantive is open to continuous revision. (g) given the cost of calculation (reason), and given the cost of collecting information (evidence), the human mind wants to reduce costs by reliance on imitation and intuition (repetition of imitation). And therefore we want via-positiva means of determining good choices. So the market demand for via positiva morality exists, but the supply of imitative moral rules is produced by via negativa: what is not immoral. (h) it is common for people to confuse the good (productive) with the moral(reciprocal). We conflate. It’s natural. But a question is only moral if it relates to others. It is only preferential if you prefer it, it is only good if others prefer it. For a moral condition to exist requires influence upon others by externality. All those statements are falsifiable, You will not be able to succeed in falsifying them.
Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory: 1) Disgust:Sanctity/Degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions). 2) Opportunity:Liberty/Oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor. 3) Empathy: Care/Harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance. 2) Morality:Fairness/Cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives] 4) Loyalty:Loyalty/Betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it’s “one for all, and all for one.” 5) Hierarchy:Authority/Subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions. As Rights to Demonstrated Interests Of Haidt’s evolutionary origins of moral intuitions, three can be expressed as demonstrated individual interests:
1. Care/harm for others, protecting them from harm. (The asset of life and body.) 2. Proportionality/Cheating, Justice, treating others in proportion to their actions. (The asset of goods.) 3. Liberty/Oppression characterizes judgments in terms of whether subjects are tyrannized. (The asset of time, opportunity.) And three others can be expressed as demonstrated community interests covering social capital. Which obviously enough, have been, and continue to be, mirrored in corporate shareholder agreements.
4. In-Group Loyalty/In-Group Betrayal to/of your group, family, nation, polity. 5. Respect/Authority/Subversion for tradition and legitimate authority. 6. Purity/Sanctity/Degradation/Disgust, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions. Note that the male reproductive strategy among chimpanzees as well as humans evolved to kill off males in opposing groups and collect females. And that females evolved to place greater emphasis on children and females than the (fungible) tribe. As such the distribution of moral intuitions varies in intensity between the feminine (1-3) and the masculine (4-6). This difference in moral intuitions roughly reflects the voting pattern we have seen since the enfranchisement of women into the electorate: an increase in the use of political violence to produce an increase in the female reproductive strategy (individual dysgenic reproduction) and a decrease in the male reproductive strategy (tribal eugenic reproduction). Which Will Also Show up In Political BiasesFeminine Consumptive (left, consumptive), Ascendant Male Productive (libertarian), and Dominant or Established Male Capitalizing (right, conservative) But We Are Frequently Immoral Unfortunately, while the via-negativa version is more accurate and less open to misinterpretation, the via-Positiva is more popular for the simple reason that it is more open to intentional misinterpretation – as a POSITIVE demand for behavior rather than a NEGATIVE demand that we eschew behavior. And men and women are natural deceivers in pursuit of discounts on their acquisitions. So we see people claim that it is moral to impose costs upon others. We see this false claim in (a) demand for sacrifice rather than limiting demand to non-imposition upon others. (b) demand for positive freedoms that impose costs upon others, rather than negative freedoms that prevent us from imposing costs upon others. (c) demand for ‘human rights’ the last few of which impose costs upon others, rather than Natural Rights, which demand we impose no costs upon others. And via negativa prohibition on the imposition of costs, is something all can do, while demand for the imposition of costs upon others is not something we can all do, nor can we pay such demands, nor is it clear that by paying such demand we do other than increase the immorality of such demands. So the one universal moral law of sentient beings is the via-Negativa form of do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you, and the via-Positiva form is open to use by fraudulent pretense. The Seen and Unseen Now, enter the seen and unseen: It turns out that the optimum group strategy for any and every polity, is to exhaust opportunity for cooperation as a cost of converting immoral people into moral people – but only on an interpersonal, not political basis. So if we use government charity or professional charities we simply increase immoral behavior in the government, in the charity, and in the polity – because subsidy of immorality always serves to increase immorality (the chief means of immorality is reproduction of children one cannot afford, and entrapping others in the moral hazard of supporting your children, rather than additional children of their own.) Christian Forgiveness and The Natural Law of Torts This is the economic strategy of via-positiva Christian forgiveness, and via-negativa of Aristocratic (Militia) Law of Tort. The vast crimes of the three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and especially Islam) in creating the Abrahamic Dark Age and the destruction of the great ancient civilizations, aside, the economic reality is that interpersonal responsibility for the conversion of others from immoral to moral actors, and resorting to legal (communal) prosecution when it fails, is the reason for Christianity’s spread of wealth wherever it goes. While western man evolved individual Sovereignty, the Jury, Thang, and Senate, the independent Empirical Judiciary, the independent common law of torts, using the natural law of reciprocity, that strategy is maximized, by the same personal responsibility for one’s behavior, the domestication of one’s children, domesticating the underclasses, and domesticating the foreigners lacking long traditions in individual Sovereignty, Individual responsibility, Natural Law by Exhaustive Forgiveness but not exhaustive tolerance. And then resorting to the commons to punish those who cannot adapt to that moral standard. Morals Are Not Relative but Reflect Genetic Distance We can and do certainly possess different moral biases, and we can and do certainly possess normative moral biases. This is true. But that does not mean that moral differences are not decidable in matters of conflict. We can use moral biases to seek allies. We can trade across moral biases when we have common interests. And we can decide moral between moral biases when we are in conflict. that means that there exist an objectively decidable morality, but that each of us requires reproductive moral allies, uses moral competitors when necessary, and resorts to objective morality in matters of conflict resolution. There is no such thing as moral relativism. We possess moral biases, both genetic, familial, and normative. We seek allies, trading partners, and judges in matters of conflict. It is entirely possible to judge within families, within norms, within trading partners, and within competitors, by objective, scientific, rational means: natural law of non-imposition. We may not like this but then knowing that such decidability exists at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor ‘distances’ requires us only to understand the criteria at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor distances. We sacrifice for kin and competitors will not bear sacrifice. We need not benefit from kin but we must benefit from trading partners. And so on. The greater the genetic and moral distance the more objective the criteria of decidability. But those differences remain decidable. Why? Because the only by which we can escape retaliation and preserve cooperation is that of the non-imposition of costs upon one another. Why Does Reciprocity Serve as Natural Law? Because it is apparently impossible to contradict reciprocity in cooperation (ethics), and as such it provides perfect decidability in all contexts of cooperation at all scales in all times, and under all conditions. That’s what the words moral and ethical mean: “Reciprocity”. Economics of Life in a Physical Universe Because We are biased for pro-sociality and morality because it is always and everywhere in our interest to both (a) reduce conflict and enemies, (b) cooperate on production, (c) generate incentives for future cooperation. There is no caloric efficiency available to life forms like cooperation in a division of labor under reciprocity (non-parasitism) and proportionality (preservation of incentive not to defect)
Define MoralityDisambiguate Morality Morality = Rules of cooperation Positive morality ( … ) Negative morality ( … )
There exists only one universal moral law of sentient beings: Reciprocity. And it has been recorded since the dawn of writing in both via-positiva form as the golden rule, and in via-negativa form as the silver rule. What Is Reciprocity?
The Silver Rule (Presumption of Inequality)
Via-Negativa: Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you. In the Negative (Silver Rule, or via-negativa): The requirement to avoid the imposition of costs on that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in, without imposing costs upon that which others have likewise born costs to obtain an interest in. And;
The Golden Rule (Presumption of Equality)
Via-Positiva: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
In the Positive(Golden Rule, or via-positiva): the requirement that we limit our actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of the imposition of costs by externality, upon that which others have obtained by the same means. As determined by;
Either any change, or the total change, in the inventory that all parties both internal and external to the action have born costs to obtain an interest in, without imposition of costs upon others directly or indirectly by externality.
The one law of Reciprocity that we call Natural Law, is this:
“The only moral actions are those that consist exclusively of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, free of imposition of costs by externality upon the demonstrated investments of others.” So all displays, words, and deeds that are not immoral, are either amoral (not immoral) or moral (productive). This doesn’t answer the question, what is a good life rather than one that is not immoral. That answer is either Aryan (acheviment, excellence), Pagan (to die a good death), Heathen (to live in harmony with nature) or christian (to do good works of charity).
The natural law is (+)Sovereignty and (-)Reciprocity, in display word and deed, including reciprocity in speech (truthful speech) regardless of cost to the status(dominance, competence hierarch), within the limits of proportionality (in group defection) within the limits of the utility of cooperation (out groups). “Within the limits of the utility of cooperation.” There is no ideal. There are no ideals. There is only what satisfies demand for infallibility.
Limiting our display word and deed to: – Fully informed (truthful and complete); … – Regardless of cost to the status, competence, or dominance hierarchy. – Productive and; – Voluntary transfer (or exchange, or imposition of costs upon); – The Demonstrated interests of Others ; – Either directly or indirectly (by externality) – And liable and warrantied, within the limits of restitutability; … – Within the limit of incentive for in-group defection; … – Within The Limit of the Utility of future out-group Cooperation; – Eliminating the incentive of retaliation and retaliation cycles, – And imposition of costs upon the commons of trust by which others cooperate.
( … )
Try To Falsify:
(a) Goods and bads refer to caloric income or loss, existential or projected. (b) Morality refers to reciprocity. (c) Reciprocity a necessity of the physical universe. (d) The human biological reward system reacts like all others to gains(reduction of costs) and losses (costs). (e) Complete Reciprocity requires: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality. However we maintain fairly accurate assessments of one another’s cost benefit to us. (f) philosophical sophistry leads to undecidability on this subject is due largely to attempts to produce a via-positiva definition of morality – which is only possible for norms – instead of a via negativa definition: we can only know what is universally immoral (negative), what is moral(positive) is whatever is not immoral (negative). This is true for all knowledge, and why science defeated philosophy even in ethics and morality: because we can only know what is false, and trivially true, but anything that is not false and substantive is open to continuous revision. (g) given the cost of calculation (reason), and given the cost of collecting information (evidence), the human mind wants to reduce costs by reliance on imitation and intuition (repetition of imitation). And therefore we want via-positiva means of determining good choices. So the market demand for via positiva morality exists, but the supply of imitative moral rules is produced by via negativa: what is not immoral. (h) it is common for people to confuse the good (productive) with the moral(reciprocal). We conflate. It’s natural. But a question is only moral if it relates to others. It is only preferential if you prefer it, it is only good if others prefer it. For a moral condition to exist requires influence upon others by externality. All those statements are falsifiable, You will not be able to succeed in falsifying them.
Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory: 1) Disgust:Sanctity/Degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions). 2) Opportunity:Liberty/Oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor. 3) Empathy: Care/Harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance. 2) Morality:Fairness/Cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives] 4) Loyalty:Loyalty/Betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it’s “one for all, and all for one.” 5) Hierarchy:Authority/Subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions. As Rights to Demonstrated Interests Of Haidt’s evolutionary origins of moral intuitions, three can be expressed as demonstrated individual interests:
1. Care/harm for others, protecting them from harm. (The asset of life and body.) 2. Proportionality/Cheating, Justice, treating others in proportion to their actions. (The asset of goods.) 3. Liberty/Oppression characterizes judgments in terms of whether subjects are tyrannized. (The asset of time, opportunity.) And three others can be expressed as demonstrated community interests covering social capital. Which obviously enough, have been, and continue to be, mirrored in corporate shareholder agreements.
4. In-Group Loyalty/In-Group Betrayal to/of your group, family, nation, polity. 5. Respect/Authority/Subversion for tradition and legitimate authority. 6. Purity/Sanctity/Degradation/Disgust, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions. Note that the male reproductive strategy among chimpanzees as well as humans evolved to kill off males in opposing groups and collect females. And that females evolved to place greater emphasis on children and females than the (fungible) tribe. As such the distribution of moral intuitions varies in intensity between the feminine (1-3) and the masculine (4-6). This difference in moral intuitions roughly reflects the voting pattern we have seen since the enfranchisement of women into the electorate: an increase in the use of political violence to produce an increase in the female reproductive strategy (individual dysgenic reproduction) and a decrease in the male reproductive strategy (tribal eugenic reproduction). Which Will Also Show up In Political BiasesFeminine Consumptive (left, consumptive), Ascendant Male Productive (libertarian), and Dominant or Established Male Capitalizing (right, conservative) But We Are Frequently Immoral Unfortunately, while the via-negativa version is more accurate and less open to misinterpretation, the via-Positiva is more popular for the simple reason that it is more open to intentional misinterpretation – as a POSITIVE demand for behavior rather than a NEGATIVE demand that we eschew behavior. And men and women are natural deceivers in pursuit of discounts on their acquisitions. So we see people claim that it is moral to impose costs upon others. We see this false claim in (a) demand for sacrifice rather than limiting demand to non-imposition upon others. (b) demand for positive freedoms that impose costs upon others, rather than negative freedoms that prevent us from imposing costs upon others. (c) demand for ‘human rights’ the last few of which impose costs upon others, rather than Natural Rights, which demand we impose no costs upon others. And via negativa prohibition on the imposition of costs, is something all can do, while demand for the imposition of costs upon others is not something we can all do, nor can we pay such demands, nor is it clear that by paying such demand we do other than increase the immorality of such demands. So the one universal moral law of sentient beings is the via-Negativa form of do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you, and the via-Positiva form is open to use by fraudulent pretense. The Seen and Unseen Now, enter the seen and unseen: It turns out that the optimum group strategy for any and every polity, is to exhaust opportunity for cooperation as a cost of converting immoral people into moral people – but only on an interpersonal, not political basis. So if we use government charity or professional charities we simply increase immoral behavior in the government, in the charity, and in the polity – because subsidy of immorality always serves to increase immorality (the chief means of immorality is reproduction of children one cannot afford, and entrapping others in the moral hazard of supporting your children, rather than additional children of their own.) Christian Forgiveness and The Natural Law of Torts This is the economic strategy of via-positiva Christian forgiveness, and via-negativa of Aristocratic (Militia) Law of Tort. The vast crimes of the three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and especially Islam) in creating the Abrahamic Dark Age and the destruction of the great ancient civilizations, aside, the economic reality is that interpersonal responsibility for the conversion of others from immoral to moral actors, and resorting to legal (communal) prosecution when it fails, is the reason for Christianity’s spread of wealth wherever it goes. While western man evolved individual Sovereignty, the Jury, Thang, and Senate, the independent Empirical Judiciary, the independent common law of torts, using the natural law of reciprocity, that strategy is maximized, by the same personal responsibility for one’s behavior, the domestication of one’s children, domesticating the underclasses, and domesticating the foreigners lacking long traditions in individual Sovereignty, Individual responsibility, Natural Law by Exhaustive Forgiveness but not exhaustive tolerance. And then resorting to the commons to punish those who cannot adapt to that moral standard. Morals Are Not Relative but Reflect Genetic Distance We can and do certainly possess different moral biases, and we can and do certainly possess normative moral biases. This is true. But that does not mean that moral differences are not decidable in matters of conflict. We can use moral biases to seek allies. We can trade across moral biases when we have common interests. And we can decide moral between moral biases when we are in conflict. that means that there exist an objectively decidable morality, but that each of us requires reproductive moral allies, uses moral competitors when necessary, and resorts to objective morality in matters of conflict resolution. There is no such thing as moral relativism. We possess moral biases, both genetic, familial, and normative. We seek allies, trading partners, and judges in matters of conflict. It is entirely possible to judge within families, within norms, within trading partners, and within competitors, by objective, scientific, rational means: natural law of non-imposition. We may not like this but then knowing that such decidability exists at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor ‘distances’ requires us only to understand the criteria at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor distances. We sacrifice for kin and competitors will not bear sacrifice. We need not benefit from kin but we must benefit from trading partners. And so on. The greater the genetic and moral distance the more objective the criteria of decidability. But those differences remain decidable. Why? Because the only by which we can escape retaliation and preserve cooperation is that of the non-imposition of costs upon one another. Why Does Reciprocity Serve as Natural Law? Because it is apparently impossible to contradict reciprocity in cooperation (ethics), and as such it provides perfect decidability in all contexts of cooperation at all scales in all times, and under all conditions. That’s what the words moral and ethical mean: “Reciprocity”. Economics of Life in a Physical Universe Because We are biased for pro-sociality and morality because it is always and everywhere in our interest to both (a) reduce conflict and enemies, (b) cooperate on production, (c) generate incentives for future cooperation. There is no caloric efficiency available to life forms like cooperation in a division of labor under reciprocity (non-parasitism) and proportionality (preservation of incentive not to defect)
THE SUPPRESSION OF PARASITISM 4 – Man conducts parasitism by violence, theft, fraud, fraud by obscurantism, fraud by moralizing, fraud by omission, externality, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, conquest, war and genocide. 3 – Man must act to preserve and extend cooperation by the suppression of parasitism without which parasitism creates the disincentive to cooperate, and therefore decreases the disproportionate rewards of acquisition through cooperation. 5 – Man suppresses parasitism by threats of interpersonal violence, promises of interpersonal violence, interpersonal violence, interpersonal ostracization from cooperation, organized ostracization via norms and commerce, when he must by remuneration, and when he can by organized violence in law and war. 7 – Man suppresses parasitism by threats of interpersonal violencepromises of interpersonal violence, use of interpersonal violence, interpersonal ostracisation from cooperation, organized ostracisation via norms and commerce, when he must by remuneration, and when he can by organized violence in law and war.
Then:
THE SUPPRESSION OF PARASITISM 4 – Man conducts parasitism by violence, theft, fraud, fraud by obscurantism, fraud by moralizing, fraud by omission, externality, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, conquest, war and genocide. 3 – Man must act to preserve and extend cooperation by the suppression of parasitism without which parasitism creates the disincentive to cooperate, and therefore decreases the disproportionate rewards of acquisition through cooperation. 5 – Man suppresses parasitism by threats of interpersonal violence, promises of interpersonal violence, interpersonal violence, interpersonal ostracization from cooperation, organized ostracization via norms and commerce, when he must by remuneration, and when he can by organized violence in law and war. 7 – Man suppresses parasitism by threats of interpersonal violencepromises of interpersonal violence, use of interpersonal violence, interpersonal ostracisation from cooperation, organized ostracisation via norms and commerce, when he must by remuneration, and when he can by organized violence in law and war.
Then: