Updated Feb 28, 2018, 11:05 AM
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-28 11:05:00 UTC
Updated Feb 28, 2018, 11:05 AM
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-28 11:05:00 UTC
HOPPE’S WORK
(from elsewhere)
TOCAS is Hoppe’s best work. It is before he is overly affected by Rothbard. Like all Hoppe’s work, he is at his best in the study, description, and articulation of general rules of human incentives, and reduction of all of ethics to statements of property – even though he fails to make the connection between via positiva property, with via-negativa Reciprocity. He solves social science making the same mistake as Kant, Hegel, Marx, and Mises – verbalisms, rather than empiricisms. Unfortunately as a German (Rationalist), educated by Marxists (Justificationists), and overly influenced by Rothbard (Fictionalist), he favors his rational insights (which are false) instead of following his original, purely operational, insights into the application of economics to politics. Mises discovered operationalism in the only field in which it mattered (math does not need it, and physics has already adopted it), and turned his (and his generation’s) intuition into a rationalist pseudoscience. Rothbard again ran with the justificationary rationalism of Jewish Law, and finally, hoppe improved upon rothbard with more rigorousness rather than appeals to optimistic moral intuition. We stand on the shoulders of Giants. But these giants are often more flawed than perfect.
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-28 10:56:00 UTC
PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIOLOGY, POLITICS, GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY ARE TRIVIALLY SIMPLE.
But it takes a great deal of Agency (evolutionary advancement) to accept (Tolerate and avoid fictionalisms) that simplicity.
Honestly.
1 – if you get mises and hoppe’s property rights analysis, and just add property-in -toto, so that you end up with acquisitionism.
2 – If you then take the cognitive biases you see how evolution fucked with us to keep us taking risks (acting, exploring) within our energy limits.
3 – Then take five factors, then ten dimensions of personality.
4 – Then take those factors and map them to phases of the prey drive on y axis, and male vs female reproductive strategies on the x-axis, and you have all of psychology.
5 – Then take haidt’s moral categories and express them as property rights, and you have all of political psychology and sociology.
6 – Then all you have is reciprocity > individual violations of reciprocity > gender violations of reciprocity > class and group violations of reciprocity > and group evolutionary violations of reciprocity, and you have all of politics.
In other words, we can cooperate honestly on one hand, and we can game each other on the other, and we can game each other at every scale from the individual to the nation.
I mean, really, it’s all that simple. That’s the boring science of it. We are very obvious gene machines that create fictions in order to cooperate while maintaining the optimum level of cheating possible within the available limits of cooperation.
Psychology either takes that scientific position, or it takes a fictionalist position. Most of us want a fictionalist position when we are young so that we can ‘feel’. Some of us want a fictionalist position when we are developing, so that we can strategize for an advantage. Some of us who mature want a justification of our strategy to provide positive feedback for our immoral successes, or our personal weakness and failings. Some people don’t fictionalize at all, they just compete without doing harm. They are the defacto natural elite.
The Truth is very simple. But the number of fictions we have invented to complicate what is very obviously the rational actions of a selfish animal in competition with other superpredators – and thereby obscure our hierarchy of immoralities.
But such fictions allow us to form coalitions of people with the same immoralities (systems of parasitism). Just as much as the truth would allow us to form coalitions of people with no immoralities and no parasitisms.
The difference is very simple: only a superior people would choose Sovereignty, reciprocity, truth(empiricism, operationalism), and markets in everything – because only a superior people can compete by sovereign, reciprocal, truthful, trusting, and market-competitive means.
And only inferior people would choose an alternative.
Hence the few use truth and markets and the many use fictionalisms. Because there are so few who are superior to the mass of humanity.
And very few men are of sufficient agency to acknowledge these truths.
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-28 10:53:00 UTC
Eric Danelaw wrote on a timeline.
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-28 10:53:00 UTC
Eric Danelaw shared a post to your timeline.
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-28 10:53:00 UTC
Updated Feb 27, 2018, 8:09 PM
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-27 20:09:00 UTC
(I hate living in america) sigh.
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-27 19:22:00 UTC
Um … the west evolved truth telling regardless of impact on the dominance hierarchy. The east developed lying to circumvent impact on the dominance hierarchy.
China’s’ first philosopher is sun-tzu, “delay, deceive, and seek opportunity to act when the opponent is in weak condition”.
The west’s first philosopher is unstated: we are small in number, so use techology, and expertise, to solve future problems immediately – regardless of the impact ont he dominnce hierarchy. This philosophy results in mathematics, plato, aristotle, and zeno.
Lying is systemic in china. It’s expected. They cannot create and hold commons. They have zero respect for human life. They care nothing for liberty.
China is a bureaucracy. Russia is a church, and the West is (or was) a militia.
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-27 16:27:00 UTC
In reality, you go to college or university, largely to gain access to an organization in which you can benefit from rents without risk of personal assets. Whereas joining the military you risk the most valuable capital that you have on a daily basis – your life. Even if the work (honestly) is not very hard. Whereas Entrepreneurs risk their capital, and work hardest of all.
Yet we are all taxed at the same rate. Why don’t we tax people by the risk they bear? Because people are rewarded in markets by the risk that they bear.
Who does not bear risk? Those who don’t have skin in the game. In other words, people whose organizations exist outside of a market (The Government), or whose organizations have access to credit that puts them effectively outside the market (large companies). Or people who sell highly valued by warrantied products ( Advertising, Media, and Academy)
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-27 14:26:00 UTC
Eric Danelaw wrote on a timeline.
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-27 14:26:00 UTC