Aug 22, 2016 2:48pm SOROS V HAYEK, AND WHY When where Soros disagrees with Hayek he relies on the criticism of the rational actor hypothesis, saying that people do not in fact act this way. But here again we have Hayek as a social scientist seeking rule of law, versus Soros as a financier seeking discretionary rule. The difference in the western heroic tradition and the Jewish tradition is illustrated once again: we peers may not interfere with the sovereignty of other peers with actions that interfere with their plans. Ergo: rule of law. Soros, as a cosmopolitan, seeks only to increase transactions regardless of the impact on the peerage, and the consequences to intertemporal capital. So yet again we see the metaphysics of the Aryans’ no harm to the commons, vs the Cosmopolitans’ maximum consumption. Hayek’s advocates do not know how to criticize Soros.
Form: Short Note
-
Tips On Writing Propertarian Arguments
USE ACTIVE VOICE 1) Learn one ‘aggressive’ or ‘honest’ technique: “Active Voice not Passive Voice” ‘John threw the ball’ not ‘the ball was thrown by john’. Read “passive voice” on the internet. This is where you’re having trouble with operational language. USE FINANCIAL AND CRIMINAL, NOT EXPERIENTIAL AND MORAL TERMINOLOGY 2) make sure any MORAL term you use is converted into an economic or financial term showing not abridgment of your interpretation of the moral contract, but of objective theft independent of subjectively biased moral judgements SO THIS A cowardly man imposes costs upon kin and kith to the extent of being beyond redemption. SHOULD BE THIS A cowardly man imposes costs upon kin and kith to the extent of being beyond restitution. ANOTHER EXAMPLE “embodying” is yet another symbolism not an objective declaration or observation. instead: “demonstrating”, or possibly in this paragraph “forcing others to protect and produce for him…” CAUSES OF OUR PASSIVE VOICE We grow up with “Polite Speech” and polite speech asks us to avoid accusatory descriptions. This produces passive voice. We grow up with the habit of talking about the object (thing affected) rather than the subject (thing acting). This produces passive voice. John did this which caused these increases or decreases in those forms of capital, demonstrating that he is a thief or investor. YOU ARE MAKING FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC TRANSACTIONS INSTEAD OF MORAL JUDGEMENTS Propertarian arguments represent A LEDGER of TRANSACTIONS against property. Think of your arguments as software that’s narrating a set of accounting entries, and rendering a judgment of profit or loss. SUMMARY Just stick with the idea of subject acted on object, which caused this result, thereby producing a transaction against property resulting in a profit or loss. CLOSING: OUR PURPOSE Our purpose is to change from the MORAL AND MONOPOLY frame of decision making on common goods, to the SCIENTIFIC AND MARKET frame of decision on common goods. So we are revolutionizing the commons by asking “We have different objectives, but we can still cooperate if we trade. so why wont you be honest with me and trade? If you will trade, then I will trade. But if you will not trade and you want to engage in fraud or theft or violence, then I will remain moral, and not engage in theft, or fraud, but I WILL engage in violence, so that in the future you engage in truth and trade, or that you are dead, so you cannot commit fraud and theft.” This is the MORAL argument we put forward in propertarianism. “Why won’t you trade with me? If you will not trade with me then you may boycott trade with me – I will understand. But if you try to commit fraud and theft, directly or indirectly, as an individual or a group of any size, then I and other moral men, will not engage in theft and fraud, but we will engage in violence to end, perform restitution for, and punish, – and if necessary kill – those who engage in fraud and theft rather than trade or boycott.”
-
Tips On Writing Propertarian Arguments
USE ACTIVE VOICE 1) Learn one ‘aggressive’ or ‘honest’ technique: “Active Voice not Passive Voice” ‘John threw the ball’ not ‘the ball was thrown by john’. Read “passive voice” on the internet. This is where you’re having trouble with operational language. USE FINANCIAL AND CRIMINAL, NOT EXPERIENTIAL AND MORAL TERMINOLOGY 2) make sure any MORAL term you use is converted into an economic or financial term showing not abridgment of your interpretation of the moral contract, but of objective theft independent of subjectively biased moral judgements SO THIS A cowardly man imposes costs upon kin and kith to the extent of being beyond redemption. SHOULD BE THIS A cowardly man imposes costs upon kin and kith to the extent of being beyond restitution. ANOTHER EXAMPLE “embodying” is yet another symbolism not an objective declaration or observation. instead: “demonstrating”, or possibly in this paragraph “forcing others to protect and produce for him…” CAUSES OF OUR PASSIVE VOICE We grow up with “Polite Speech” and polite speech asks us to avoid accusatory descriptions. This produces passive voice. We grow up with the habit of talking about the object (thing affected) rather than the subject (thing acting). This produces passive voice. John did this which caused these increases or decreases in those forms of capital, demonstrating that he is a thief or investor. YOU ARE MAKING FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC TRANSACTIONS INSTEAD OF MORAL JUDGEMENTS Propertarian arguments represent A LEDGER of TRANSACTIONS against property. Think of your arguments as software that’s narrating a set of accounting entries, and rendering a judgment of profit or loss. SUMMARY Just stick with the idea of subject acted on object, which caused this result, thereby producing a transaction against property resulting in a profit or loss. CLOSING: OUR PURPOSE Our purpose is to change from the MORAL AND MONOPOLY frame of decision making on common goods, to the SCIENTIFIC AND MARKET frame of decision on common goods. So we are revolutionizing the commons by asking “We have different objectives, but we can still cooperate if we trade. so why wont you be honest with me and trade? If you will trade, then I will trade. But if you will not trade and you want to engage in fraud or theft or violence, then I will remain moral, and not engage in theft, or fraud, but I WILL engage in violence, so that in the future you engage in truth and trade, or that you are dead, so you cannot commit fraud and theft.” This is the MORAL argument we put forward in propertarianism. “Why won’t you trade with me? If you will not trade with me then you may boycott trade with me – I will understand. But if you try to commit fraud and theft, directly or indirectly, as an individual or a group of any size, then I and other moral men, will not engage in theft and fraud, but we will engage in violence to end, perform restitution for, and punish, – and if necessary kill – those who engage in fraud and theft rather than trade or boycott.”
-
State Healthcare is Not A Problem Unless It’s A Monopoly
Aug 24, 2016 11:35am The problem is MONOPOLY healthcare. As long as private care and hospitals are available, and the wealthy are paying for time and customer service, they will continue to pay for research and development, and the STATE healthcare can provide commodity services. The problem is not that this arrangement wouldn’t provide better care all around, but that the state cannot bear competition under which state health care would always be considered by the market to be inferior, and therefore pressure higher on the state.
-
State Healthcare is Not A Problem Unless It’s A Monopoly
Aug 24, 2016 11:35am The problem is MONOPOLY healthcare. As long as private care and hospitals are available, and the wealthy are paying for time and customer service, they will continue to pay for research and development, and the STATE healthcare can provide commodity services. The problem is not that this arrangement wouldn’t provide better care all around, but that the state cannot bear competition under which state health care would always be considered by the market to be inferior, and therefore pressure higher on the state.
-
Poetry and Rhyme As Institutions of Normative Law
Aug 24, 2016 11:41am(interesting idea) There is a reason why we want to restore BOTH truthfulness AND Poetry with Rhyme: Just as our ancient ancestors chose our intellectual (druidic / historian) leadership by their abilities to remember, our more recent intellectual leadership was sorted out by their use of poetry and meter. So if we speak testimonially, in rhyme and meter, we will ‘sort’ by speech as did our historical and prehistorical ancestors. And like our ancestors these words, in rhyme and verse, truth to the core, will work their way into the commons vernacular as normative law. ( I will work more on this but I seem to have solved the problem of both truthful speech, and art, poetry, and literature that troubled me so seriously in the early days.)
-
Poetry and Rhyme As Institutions of Normative Law
Aug 24, 2016 11:41am(interesting idea) There is a reason why we want to restore BOTH truthfulness AND Poetry with Rhyme: Just as our ancient ancestors chose our intellectual (druidic / historian) leadership by their abilities to remember, our more recent intellectual leadership was sorted out by their use of poetry and meter. So if we speak testimonially, in rhyme and meter, we will ‘sort’ by speech as did our historical and prehistorical ancestors. And like our ancestors these words, in rhyme and verse, truth to the core, will work their way into the commons vernacular as normative law. ( I will work more on this but I seem to have solved the problem of both truthful speech, and art, poetry, and literature that troubled me so seriously in the early days.)
-
There Is No Reason To Tolerate Burgher (Bourgeoise) Interference in Political Orders
Let’s compare Soros’ activism, with PPPP’s activism against Gawker. The courts can be, if we repair the constitution, a method by which the wealthy can police what the politicians choose not to. This is a good. We have juridical defense in these cases. But why can we not sue Soros for corruption by circumventing the courts, where we have juridical defense? The moment we let the state determine law rahter than terms of contract we surrender to state corruption, and the corruptibility of the state. So far, in the west, we have, at least until the past few generations, been able to preserve the rule of law as sacred natural order beyond which no man may transgress. This is our defense. Not politicians. They are corrupt to the last – because they must be.
-
There Is No Reason To Tolerate Burgher (Bourgeoise) Interference in Political Orders
Let’s compare Soros’ activism, with PPPP’s activism against Gawker. The courts can be, if we repair the constitution, a method by which the wealthy can police what the politicians choose not to. This is a good. We have juridical defense in these cases. But why can we not sue Soros for corruption by circumventing the courts, where we have juridical defense? The moment we let the state determine law rahter than terms of contract we surrender to state corruption, and the corruptibility of the state. So far, in the west, we have, at least until the past few generations, been able to preserve the rule of law as sacred natural order beyond which no man may transgress. This is our defense. Not politicians. They are corrupt to the last – because they must be.
-
Bourgeoise? No. Logistics of War
Aug 24, 2016 12:11pm BOURGEOISE? NO – LOGISTICS OF WAR I get accused of bourgeoise values all the time, and I always think it’s childish, or ignorant. Generals conduct strategy and that means logistics. The last mile, for today, may depend on the character of men. But all the miles behind them, and all the yesterdays and tomorrows depend upon the logistics: production and supply lines. A dangerous, happy, well-fed soldiery capable of defeating an enemy is equipped and supported by a happy, produdtive, well fed, population competitively defeating in economics and intellectual means their competitors, just as the soldiers their competitors. I tend to think of ‘last-mile-ers’ as children: well-intentioned, passionate, but ignorant and naive. My own values are classical, intellectual, and perhaps a bit effete. I do not seek to win the great wars by my values. Nor by the elation of the throng. But by cool headed plans and execution of them, with discipline over many years.