memory is an awesome thing. new card. saw the pin printed about a month ago when i opened the mail. thought I’d copy it down later. realized I hadn’t, the other day. woke up this morning. vaguely recalled the moment. and then bang, there it is. so cool.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-29 12:09:00 UTC
MARX WAS WRONG ON LABOR. THE PROBLEM IS ORGANIZING PRODUCTION NOT LABOR. LABOR IS A COMMODITY WHOSE ONLY VALUE IS DETERMINED BY SCARCITY. THE MORE POPULOUS THE LOWER CLASSES THE LESS SCARCE, THE LESS VALUE.
Organizing production is where the value is created. Potential labor is merely a commodity like wood or wheat.
Organizing production, and in particularly organizing voluntary production using nothing but incentives, in an environment where your offered incentives are tested against other incentives, (your theory of demand for your good or service is tested), is where value is created.
If that was not true, people would never have to look for work. When people look for work they are seeking to ‘buy’ income by participation in the organization of production that they themselves cannot organize and profit from – they are capable only of organizing their OWN labor. Property-Rights Makers(aristocracy), Investors, Bankers, Entrepreneurs, People who calculate in various jobs, down to the people who manage machines and who operate machines, each organize labor – their own and that of others. And we do this all in real time with constantly changing wants, needs, scarcity and prices.
We are rewarded for the value of our contribution, which is determined by the scarcity of our contribution. Organizing production is more rewarding than any other activity. It is extremely difficult. It is extremely difficult and highly unproductive to organize production involuntarily in a managed economy. It is extremely difficult but highly productive to organize production in a voluntary economy.
There is no reason that we cannot use both involuntary (the military) and voluntary (the market) organization of production in the same economy. There is no reason that the physical commons cannot be maintained involuntarily as is the military, while the more complex commons and the market itself are organized voluntarily. Only socialism and libertarianism have tried to enforce a monopoly mode of production. And while I agree that an aristocratic, highly homogenous society that that of the English once possessed could produce a libertarian order, the fact of the matter is that even in that order, we had a lot of lower class labor in oversupply, which for all intents and purposes could have been organized, like the military, for the production of commons.
THE OBJECTIVE OF THE LOWER CLASSES MUST ALWAYS BE TO REDUCE THEIR NUMBER TO INCREASE THEIR TAKE. DEMOCRACY REVERSES THIS AND WORKS AGAINST THEM.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-29 05:10:00 UTC
WHAT IS A NEGATIVE EXTERNALITY? Here…
A negative externality is produced by taking an action that causes an involuntary decrease in an individual’s inventory of property-in-toto* (*’Propertarian’ property defined as that which we demonstrate to be our property by defense of it. Not private property which is a contractual expression of which disputes a community will organize to apply violence against and which not.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-29 04:59:00 UTC
REFORMING PHILOSOPHY: ITS ALL CALCULATION NOW. ALGORITHMS WIN OVER SET OPERATIONS.
That any general rule,
Requires a utilitarian context (a ‘question’)
AND
That answering that question,
Requires an hypothesis{intuition,->hypothesis, ->theory, ->law}
AND
Any hypothesis,
Requires a test of verbal construction,
Requires tests of internal consistency,
Using the instruments of logical operations{identity, ->category(logic proper), ->scale, ->relation, ->time, ->cause, ->cooperation}
AND
Requires tests of external correspondence,
Using the instruments of physical operations {a sequence of actions},
Recorded as a sequence of actions and measurements(observations)
That can be followed and reproduced by others,
AND
Requires Warranty,
Provided to the self, or to others, consisting of:
Tests of falsification recorded
Using instruments of physical and logical operations.
Recorded as a sequence of actions and measurements(observations),
That can be reproduced by others.
AND
Requires Warranty,
Provided to the self and others, consisting of:
Testimony to the truthful witness of all the above.
This algorithm applies in all cases of human construction of general rules. There is no need for any other model except to lower the standard, and to obviate the individual from warranty.
Philosophy suffers, possibly catastrophically, from verbalism: syllogism and set operation, rather than algorithmic operations. These verbalisms rely on extant meaning of words, themselves general rules. These words carry properties and relations whenever used. We use only some subset of those properties and relations in any context.This means that the use of words can add informational content to any statement that would not be extant if expressed as an operation.
As such philosophy as a discipline tolerates polluted (extra information) that obscures, incorrectly weights, confuses and conflates theories. The majority of errors come not from comparisons (calculations) but from information external to the operation included in the language. This is why defining terms is so important. It is equivalent to using pure ingredients in chemistry.
As far as I know, once we have solved the problem of ethics, morality, and politics, we possess all necessary logical instrumentation, and philosophy is a closed domain in which all statements can be represented logically through operations.
As far as I know, if we follow what originated as the scientific method, but is simply the algorithmic application of instruments both mental and physical: “THE method”, no other method is needed.
Worse philosophy, outside of science, appears to be extremely useful for the purpose of conducting interpersonal, social, political, and economic, fraud. In fact, the singular purpose of the vast majority of philosophy, has been used for the purpose of justifying these categories of fraud: justifying takings.
Apriorism, as we have seen in Mises and Rothbard, can be abused, can be used to state pseudoscience (misesian praxeology), and to state immorality as moral (Rothbard), and requires no warranty. And all products in the market, whether physical operations (goods and services) or mental operations (hypothesis) can cause negative externalities that impose costs upon others.
When our theories were confined to human action at human scale, mythology was adequate, and even when our investigation of the physical world was limited to human scale, our reason was largely adequate. Because humans can test arguments at human scale. But all theories exceeding human scale (human perception) require instrumentation. And instrumentation is required for any operation that is not possible to conduct with human sense perception alone.
So, while it may be true that relying upon apriorism is useful. It is also true that constructing and publishing a theory in that manner is an avoidance of providing warranty to your ideas. And labeling your ideas as a black-market product that may have dangerous, keynesian levels, freudian levels, cantorian levels, rothbardian levels, of side effects.
And any moral man should seek to prosecute you in every possible venue for the pollution of the commons.
(I think I can wrap it all together even better, but I’m getting there.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-29 04:52:00 UTC
LIBERTY IN MODERNITY ISN’T FOR SIMPLETONS
(reposted)
People who live in tents, ride animals, and shepherd other animals, talk about beliefs. People with fixed capital, who live in castles talk about laws. There is a reason for that.
When you ask people to value something that’s an informal institution we call belief.
When you tell people that property is a rule that you cannot violate, that’s a formal institution we call law.
The first is religion. The second is government.
Is your brand of liberty for goatherds living in tents (religion) that requires belief, or for engineers, builders and craftsmen, (government) that requires laws?
People who live in tents have very simple property. They need very simple laws.
Liberty in modernity isn’t for simpletons.
Try not to think like one.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-28 07:29:00 UTC
NEO-REACTION IS A CRITICISM – PROPERTARIANISM IS A SOLUTION
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-28 05:59:00 UTC
NEO-REACTION IN A NUTSHELL: WE ARE RULED BY A THEOCRACY
(worth repeating)
—“The central proposition of neo-reaction is that the enlightenment was dangerously optimistic about humans, human nature, and the state; and that as a consequence, society is just as religious as ever it was, with an official state religion of progressivism: the promise of an aristocracy of everyone. It is another “good-news” religion, telling us what we wish to hear, but about this world instead of the next.
Instead of the church teaching supernatural analogy, we have academia, public intellectuals and the state all preaching the new religion of progressivism. And this new religion, is an evil religion: pseudoscientific rather than supernatural, irrational rather than logical, dishonest rather than allegorical, consumptive and destructive rather than accumulative, dysgenic rather than evolutionary, and suicidal rather than exceptional.
And so, western philosophy didn’t go wrong four years ago, or ten years ago, or eighty years ago – but it went fundamentally and terribly wrong over three centuries ago, with the enlightenment.
We had already evolved the best form of government yet devised: a market for production of private goods and services, and a house for each of the classes to produce common goods and services we cannot produce in the market alone.
And our only significant error was to fail to grasp that the church: the representative of the common people, served as one of those houses of government, and should not have been separate from the other two: the long term interests of the martial land owners, the medium term interests of entrepreneurial banking, production and trade. Instead, we handed the aristocracy and commerce to the new church: the academy and its priesthood the public intellectuals. America is ruled by a theocracy.
The central problem of any post-hunter-gatherer society, engaged in production, is to ensure that the fecundity of the unproductive does not eradicate the increases in productivity of the creative – but that those increases are accumulated as a competitive advantage against the fecundity of not only our own relations, but of those who would replace us. Otherwise all innovation is translated into population expansion rather than advancement. Northern european civilization succeeded faster than all others, in no small part because it concentrated reproduction in its upper classes, not in expanding the burden of its lower classes.
Neo-reaction then, is an articulate and accurate criticism of the enlightenment and its evidentiary failure culminating in the late 20th century – including the rejection of the ideology by the adoption of totalitarian consumer capitalism everywhere other than the west. Propertarianism, including Aristocratic Egalitarianism, Testimonial Truth and Operationalism provide the logical and institutional solution to the problem of cooperation among competing interests we call ‘politics’, that the Enlightenment, and Neo-Reaction did not.”—
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-28 05:30:00 UTC
(Second Draft)
— PART I — MAN —
1) Acquisitiveness: To survive and reproduce, humans must acquire and inventory many categories of resources, and evolved to demonstrate constant acquisitiveness of those resources.
2) Property: The scope of those things they act upon, or choose not to act upon, in anticipation of obtaining as inventory (a store of value), constitute their demonstrated definition of property-en-toto.* (See Butler Schaeffer) “That which and organism defends.”
3) Value: Human emotions evolved to reflect changes in state of property-en-toto.* As such nearly all emotions can be expressed in terms of reactions to property. (imposed costs here, pre-moral, but also pre-cooperation, and only defense and retaliation, not cooperation)
4) Non-Conflict: That which humans act to obtain without imposition upon in-group members they evolved to intuit as their property, and demonstrate this intuition by defense of their inventory, and by their punishment of transgressors.
5) Cooperative Production: That which humans act in concert with one another to produce. (Important take-away is that the purpose of cooperation is material and reproductive production.)
6) Moral (cooperative) Intuitions(instincts): Moral intuitions reflect prohibitions on free riding by members with whom one cooperates in production and reproduction. (This is where free riding enters.)
7) Distribution of Intuitions by Reproductive Strategy: Moral intuitions vary in intensity to suit one’s reproductive strategy. This intensity and distribution of moral intuition varies between males and females, as well as between classes and between groups.
8) Variation By Family Structure: Moral rules reflect prohibitions on free riding given the structure of the family in relation to the necessary and available structure of production.
9) Resolution of Disputes: Property rights were developed in law as the positive enumeration in contractual form, of those moral rules which any polity (corporation) agrees to enforce with the promise of violence for the purpose of restitution or punishment. Conversely, any possible property rights not expressed, the community (corporation) is unwilling to adjudicate, restore or punish, or has not yet discovered the need to construct.
10) Instrumentation: Property rights are necessary for the instrumental measurement of moral prohibitions because of the unobservability of changes in human emotional states, and our inability to determine truth from falsehood. And as such we require an observable proxy for evidence of changes in state.
11) Family: As a general rule, as the division of knowledge and labor increases, so must the atomicity of property rights, and as a consequence, the size of the family must decline {Consanguineous, Punaluan, Pairing (Serial Marriage), Hetaeristic, Traditional, Stem, Nuclear, Absolute Nuclear}.
12) Transaction Costs: As the division of labor increases, relationships increase in distance from kin, increase in anonymity, decrease common interest, and the incentive to seize opportunities rather than adhere to agreements increases. This decrease creates the problem of trust, which increases costs of insuring any agreement is fulfilled, and decreases the overall number of possible agreements and the number of participants in any structure of production.
13) Trust (ethics in production): As a general rule, for the size of the family to decrease, and division of labor to increase in multi-part *complexity* then trust must increase, and trust can only increase with expansion of property rights to include prohibitions on unethical actions. Mere ostracization, boycotting and reputation are insufficient to preserve agreements (contracts).
14) Moral Competition (ethics in political production): (morals property rights, cheating) As a general rule, the scope of moral prohibitions expressed as property rights, must increase to limit demand for authority.
15) Demand for Authority: As a general rule, if a delay in the production of property rights evolves, then demand for authority will fill the vacuum with some form of authority to either suppress retaliation (conflict) or to prevent circumstances leading to conflict, or both.
— PART II– PRODUCTION OF COMMONS (Including the market as a commons)
1) Competition (Market): ……………
2) Competition (Commons): ………..
3) Free Riding on Commons: ……….
4) Prohibition On Privatizing/Socializing Commons …. (necessity) ……….
5) Calculability. Commensurability of Property Rights (as a weight and measure)
(…………)
999) Monuments. The production of monuments (burials, temples, churches, parks)
— PART III — CENTRALIZATION AND ELIMINATION OF RENTS
1) Governments, particularly empires (of which states, cities, and local polities, are merely a smaller class), in an effort to first create a standard “weight and measure” in the practice of law, so that disputes can be rationally adjudicated, imposed uniform rules (property rights) on sub groups, for all subgroups under their management. And secondly, they centralize rent seeking. As such we trade local and pervasive transaction costs for infrequent but expensive centralized costs.
Whether empire, state, polity, tribe, family or class, the same problem is faced between all cooperating groups: without individualized property rights, neither the construction of contracts, nor rational adjudication is not possible. Without individualized property rights, rents cannot be circumvented (or centralized). Without individualized property rights, individual incentives are not possible. Without individualized property rights production cannot be planned. Without rational adjudication of differences, the ability to circumvent rents, the possibility of individual incentives, and the capacity to plan, transaction costs exceed the ability of people to construct the voluntary organization of production, even if they wished to.
2) Commands: Governments then expanded the law as a standard of weights and measures, to include commands, distorting the voluntary structure of production, and therefore not only uniform only uniform weights and measures. Thereby conflating the imposition of standards of law, with the creation of commands holding the status of law – commands that were only law by analogy.
3) Centralized Rents: Governments, by homogenizing law, centralized law (and command), and by centralizing law (and command), centralized rent-seeking (and later, as a monopoly, increased it.) Note: Centralization often forced tribal leaders and family elders out of rent seeking and power, and into production, thus lowering transaction costs for production and trade at the expense of increasing overall costs of the parasitic bureaucracy.
21) Aristocracy sought to prevent centralization (of rents) in favor of competing jurisdictions that focus owners on creation, and adapt quickly. Bureaucracy sought to centralize a homogenous jurisdiction that focus administrators to seek rents, and to provide certainty (stability) in rents – expanding rents to the maximum tolerable.
22) Professionalization of military under aristocracy
22) Extension of franchise to bankers, producers, traders from land holders.
22) Scale: Increased demand for commons
23) Management: Problem of managing commons
24) Extension of weights and measures (min-empires – local state conquest)
— PART IV —
1) Libertarians: (classical liberals), seek to purge rent seeking, from the central system, and return to aristocracy
2) Libertines: (cosmopolitans) seek to restore unethical and immoral action – and non-conflict (non-cooperation) rather than moral and therefore productive cooperation.)
3) Socialists: (………….)
4) Liberty: ……….(liberty as tariff , slavey, right to local law and custom, libertarianism as standard weight and measure) – not free riding however.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-27 14:44:00 UTC
(regarding previous post)
The Libertine(Rothbardian) argument is to abandon all consideration of the competitive production of commons and to return to a low trust levantine polity of pervasively unethical and immoral conditions. (Rothbard, Rockwell, and Block).
However, the propertarian solution is to eliminate the possibility of rents and free riding on the production of commons using competing houses and private production of commons, by requiring contracts, strict construction and original intent, operational calculability, transparency and universal standing. (Methods and procedures that are common in businesses world wide).
I am having a very hard time determining what commons can honestly be demonstrated to be victims of free riding, even if many are subject to privatization and socialization. This is well covered in the literature, and as far as I know, regulation and rent seeking are the cause of most difficulties.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-27 13:26:00 UTC
CENTRALIZE RENTS THEN EXTERMINATE THEM
Economic Rents create lost opportunities for exchange by granting a privilege that is incalculable instead of a return to the polity that is calculable (measurable). Majority rule creates lost opportunities to exchange rents and privileges which are incalculable, for returns to the polity that are calculable (measurable). Pooling of taxes rather than fees for services, the payments of debts, and returns on investments, create opportunities for rents. It is this system of rents that we systemically MUST construct under democracy. It is this system of rents, when replaced with requirement for operational calculability (operationalism) that allows the predatory and parasitic rent-seeking bureaucracy to exist. Conversely, with a universal requirement for operational calculability, universal standing for the prosecution of rent seeking, and the negotiation of contracts, rather than the competition for rents in order to obtain power necessary to issue laws (commands), it is impossible to seek rents. And even if rents are obtained, impossible to hold them. Yet this system does not require that we abandon the construction of commons. Only abandon the rentiers. So while it was necessary to centralize rents in order to extinguish family, guild and tribal rents, it is now equally necessary to necessary to ban rents permanently. All that is required is universal standing and operational calculability.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-27 13:06:00 UTC