BECKER’S USE OF MARGINALISM IN VIOLENCE AND REVOLUTION (predatory gains are linear, losses to prey are exponential) —“…a simple calculation that predatory interest groups and their taxpaying victims make: what return on my investment can I get by lobbying government? Becker’s insight is that the gains to predators are linear, but the losses to prey are exponential, thereby stiffening the resistance of victims as the aggression of predators plods on without similarly increased vigor. Think of a gang of robbers taking half the crop from peasants. They then return for the second half. The gain to the gang of the second half cut is the same as in their first extortion. Yet for peasants to lose the last half of their crops means possible starvation and the certain loss of seed corn. They can be expected to resist violently…”— Violence is always extant. This of course, is why the government’s search for pareto optimums, and biology and the market’s search for nash equilibriums are so different, and why Pareto optimums are so dangerous: the state produces ‘trigger events’ by some linear increase that produces a revolution: the exponential cost is too high and war or revolution is preferable to on more incremental predation.
Form: Quote Commentary
-
Becker’s Use of Marginalism in Violence and Revolution
BECKER’S USE OF MARGINALISM IN VIOLENCE AND REVOLUTION (predatory gains are linear, losses to prey are exponential) —“…a simple calculation that predatory interest groups and their taxpaying victims make: what return on my investment can I get by lobbying government? Becker’s insight is that the gains to predators are linear, but the losses to prey are exponential, thereby stiffening the resistance of victims as the aggression of predators plods on without similarly increased vigor. Think of a gang of robbers taking half the crop from peasants. They then return for the second half. The gain to the gang of the second half cut is the same as in their first extortion. Yet for peasants to lose the last half of their crops means possible starvation and the certain loss of seed corn. They can be expected to resist violently…”— Violence is always extant. This of course, is why the government’s search for pareto optimums, and biology and the market’s search for nash equilibriums are so different, and why Pareto optimums are so dangerous: the state produces ‘trigger events’ by some linear increase that produces a revolution: the exponential cost is too high and war or revolution is preferable to on more incremental predation.
-
Privilege? Earned Stereotype
—“Privilege is something any group will create for its members if they are able. I think we would do better to ask what’s wrong with groups that are unable, rather than tolerating lectures on account of we trust each other more than we trust them; when they evidently don’t even trust each other (because they would prefer to interact, or do business, or live among, us.)”— Eli Harman If you, as an individual, find yourself benefitting from the stereotypes developed by your people, is it not ‘true’ and is it not ‘moral’? The more interesting question is why do others not benefit from the stereotypes developed by their people? Trust, truth telling, and signals of trust and truth telling are very expensive investments a people must make. Why is it that some are more or less willing and able to make those investments and produce that stereotype? Why should people pay high costs to test a stereotype that was paid for at such high cost? And why have you and yours failed to produce an equally valuable stereotype?
-
Privilege? Earned Stereotype
—“Privilege is something any group will create for its members if they are able. I think we would do better to ask what’s wrong with groups that are unable, rather than tolerating lectures on account of we trust each other more than we trust them; when they evidently don’t even trust each other (because they would prefer to interact, or do business, or live among, us.)”— Eli Harman If you, as an individual, find yourself benefitting from the stereotypes developed by your people, is it not ‘true’ and is it not ‘moral’? The more interesting question is why do others not benefit from the stereotypes developed by their people? Trust, truth telling, and signals of trust and truth telling are very expensive investments a people must make. Why is it that some are more or less willing and able to make those investments and produce that stereotype? Why should people pay high costs to test a stereotype that was paid for at such high cost? And why have you and yours failed to produce an equally valuable stereotype?
-
Untitled
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-19/a-look-at-the-ugly-side-of-getting-richhttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-19/a-look-at-the-ugly-side-of-getting-rich
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 17:48:00 UTC
-
by Bob Moran We’ve built societies where slavery is counter-productive (or at le
by Bob Moran
We’ve built societies where slavery is counter-productive (or at least much less efficient than the alternatives), but it doesn’t mean it’s never a valuable choice given some the circumstances. Just like high trust, the lack of slavery is part of our privileges.
And yet, we are getting guilt tripped for what we built for ourselves and to a certain extent given to others.
High trust: You’re mean because you don’t trust me like your own. –> Why don’t you have high trust societies? Why should we trust you?
Wealth: You’re mean because you don’t give me the same stuff as your own. –> Why are you poor?
Citizenship: You’re mean because you don’t give me the same rights as your own. –> Why are your laws retarded and corrupted?
Land/Conquest: You’re mean because you took land / you don’t give me land –> Why couldn’t you hold land? Why can’t you take it?
Slavery : You’re mean because you don’t (didn’t) treat me like your own. –> Did you prove we could? Did you enslave each other to be sold to outsiders? Did you lack the force to defend yourself?
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 14:10:00 UTC
-
“Privilege is something any group will create for its members if they are able.
—“Privilege is something any group will create for its members if they are able. I think we would do better to ask what’s wrong with groups that are unable, rather than tolerating lectures on account of we trust each other more than we trust them; when they evidently don’t even trust each other (because they would prefer to interact, or do business, or live among, us.)”— Eli Harman
If you, as an individual, find yourself benefitting from the stereotypes developed by your people, is it not ‘true’ and is it not ‘moral’? The more interesting question is why do others not benefit from the stereotypes developed by their people?
Trust, truth telling, and signals of trust and truth telling are very expensive investments a people must make. Why is it that some are more or less willing and able to make those investments and produce that stereotype?
Why should people pay high costs to test a stereotype that was paid for at such high cost? And why have you and yours failed to produce an equally valuable stereotype?
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 11:50:00 UTC
-
Untitled
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 22:53:00 UTC
-
ARGUMENT AND POSITIONING
http://politi.co/2pKKdX1EXCELLENT ARGUMENT AND POSITIONING
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 21:01:00 UTC
-
LIFE COUNTER-STRIKE PISTOL ROUND…. (omg) Guy runs around with a pistol, silenc
http://www.machovideo.com/15755/isis-executing-people-with-silencer/REAL LIFE COUNTER-STRIKE PISTOL ROUND…. (omg)
Guy runs around with a pistol, silencer, and gopro, doing surprise hits one after the other. Insanity….
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 18:30:00 UTC