Under ‘General Fund’ taxation, all political representatives are nothing more than schemers trying to consume accumulated capital to distribute to supporters.
The opposite case is direct democracy, where each individual contributes his taxes to the purposes he prefers, and where those purposes are limited to non-parasitic commons, easily articulated as infrastructure and insurance.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-26 08:52:00 UTC
I want meritocracy so that I can be ruled by my betters, and spend my time on that which I care to, rather than defending myself from those not better than I.
I pray the god, deliver us unto kings, and save us from ‘the people’.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-26 08:39:00 UTC
HOW MANY ETHINC GROUPS ARE THERE IN THE WORLD?
I’ll give you the best answer I can, having spent some time on this question myself.
Nation states and empires attempt to crush local identities, or deny them. (china and mongols the most obvious). Governments have incentives to be dishonest. All government data is suspect. Unfortunately the Academy is a co conspirator to government because it is cheaper to use government data than to conduct genetic and cultural research.
During the time of nation states, most europeans lost their local identities, although our ‘tribes’ at last at the macro level are still ascertainable in many cases. Even today, despite the fact that northeastern, northern, central, and southern descendants in the united states all come from different regions and tribes, and still practice those cultural differences, the government suppresses those differences.
So when we say ‘ethnicity’ are we saying nation state, or race, sub-race, tribe, and clan, using the identity with which they identify themselves? For example, the french speak french, but and parisians are culturally parisian, but the french countryside is identifiably germanic and has retained those cultural tendencies. American whites are primarily german, but speak english. Southern italians are ethnically greek, and northern ethnically german. They know this, but data just groups them together.
For these politicized reasons, I tend to think the only honest means of judging ethnicity is genetic, cultural, and linguistic in that order, which is how people tend to describe themselves if they have an ethnic identity that is important to them. For those that it isn’t there is usually a reason to avoid it and choose some else less ‘truthful’.
Using that method of categorization, As far as I know there are four major races(with austrailasians earning their own category), nine or so subraces (separating out the various indo europeans in particular), over 100 minor races and a vast number tribes and unmeasurable number of clans.
But the truth is that genetics is going to solve this for us within the next few decades and governments will no longer be able to play their games with us.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 21:55:00 UTC
https://t.co/sR6zHCXJ2aHow many ethnic groups are there in the whole world?
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 21:54:00 UTC
(How the hell did I get on Quora’s “Attraction and Attachment” (relationships) list of people to ask answers of? weird…)
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 21:31:00 UTC
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 21:24:00 UTC
https://www.quora.com/Why-and-how-do-free-markets-work/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=658c5d7fPeople come into proximity with one another to decrease opportunity costs (concentrate opportunities and decrease the cost of each opportunity). This is the reason productivity increases with population density: we save time and expense, increase the division of knowledge and labor, and increase the velocity of trades, so we make the cost of pursuing opportunities cheaper.
But when we come into proximity and decrease the costs of opportunities, we also increase the number of competitors both for consumption of goods, services, and information, and for the production of goods, services, and information.
So the only means of pursuing those opportunities is to reduce the cost or improve the product, service, or information. Innovators force all other producers to improve the cost and quality and diversity of their products. Unfortunately it is usually much harder to improve the quality of labor, than it is to improve goods, services, and information.
This cycle of competition and innovation keeps prices down and quality up, at the cost of forcing everyone to work harder, think harder, and spend more time working, leaving some people by the wayside because they cannot adapt themselves or their goods, services, or information fast enough to serve the interests of buyers given the available competition.
A free market refers to the territorial, political, and juridical conditions under which anyone can engage in the negotiation and voluntary trade of attention, effort, labor, goods, services, information, promises and obligations, assuming that which he trades was obtained by him by the same means.
Where one of the following sets of conditions applies:
The government does not interfere with prices or conditions of the transaction and only enforces common laws of contract and tort. (this is an ok thing)
or
The government does not interfere with prices conditions of the transactions, but forces all parties to warranty for performance, and against fraud. (This is better thing)
or
The government does not interfere with prices conditions of the transactions, but forces all parties to warranty for performance, for fully informed consent, and against fraud, and that the exchange is reciprocally productive (This is an even better thing)
or
The government does not interfere with prices, conditions of the transactions, forces involuntary warranties for performance and fully informed consent, and against fraud, and that the exchange is reciprocally productive, but prevents externalization of costs to the commons by the socialization of losses, the privatization of commons, or the consumption of a common resource without compensation to the polity. (an even better thing.)
or
The government does not interfere with prices, conditions of the transactions, forces involuntary warranties for performance and fully informed consent, and against fraud, and that the exchange is reciprocally productive, but prevents externalization of costs to the commons by the socialization of losses, the privatization of commons, or the consumption of a common resource without compensation to the polity, and that no conspiracy exists to create an artificial shortage in order to increase prices without increasing the content of the product, service, or good (an even better thing.)
A free market, may describe any of those different conditions. But only the last of those, I have listed is in fact a MORAL free market.
Free markets are too often used as an excuse to conduct parasitism rather than productivity, under the ruse of moral pretense.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 21:07:00 UTC
https://t.co/pndD5hKIcNWhy is it called the free market when the poor have no choice but to sell their labor so they don’t starve?
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 20:34:00 UTC
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-criticisms-of-the-Austrian-school-of-economic-thought/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=9a235e59It depends upon which Austrian school you’re asking about.
1) the Christian Austrians, including Menger and the Marginalists whose work has been fully integrated into mainstream economics with the exception of their certainty of the influence of the business cycle.
or
2) the Jewish Austrians, including Mises alone, and perhaps Rothbard, who stumbled upon Operationalism in economics, but instead of comprehending that a truthful proposition must be BOTH externally correspondent, and existentially possible to construct via a series of rationally testable operations, attempted to somehow conflate Jewish Law, and Mathematical Logic and instead, created the pseudoscience of ‘praxeology’ under which they claim all economics must be produced by a sequence of operations.
This left Mises respected but a laughing stock without a position. Unfortunately he did not understand what he had stumbled upon, and he could have reformed economics. But he failed. He failed because he was committed to his dogma, and committed to his error.
The only reason we discuss mises at all is because the Mises Institute copied the techniques of the marxists of (a) heaping undue praise, (b) creating long lists of straw man arguments by which to criticize empirical science but never producing anything more than amateurish justificationary pseudo-scientific arguments, (c) using the new medium of the internet as an inexpensive propaganda device, (d) marketing to the well intentioned fools (the young males), and entrepreneurs who, because of their success in the market, overrate their comprehension of political economy.
So why doesn’t anyone take ‘Austrian Economics’ seriously? They do. They take mengerian economics seriously: marginalism. They take the austrian project seriously: an attempt to develop a social science of political economy by which we remove obstacles to cooperation – NOT as the chicago school has done, a science of MONETARY economy, to insure against shocks to cooperation, and NOT as the saltwater (Jewish Left) school has done, which is a science of the maximum interference that is possible such that the maximum consumption is pursued, so that the maximum capital is moving, and the minimum capital is held in reserve against the most severe of shocks.
If you understand these few paragraphs you know more about the problems of the economics profession than most professors will ever dream of.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 20:31:00 UTC
https://t.co/2WPIwE1nIcWhat are the best things to do on weekends as a student at the University of Hartford?
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 20:08:00 UTC