http://time.com/106319/heres-what-chinese-hackers-actually-stole-from-u-s-companies/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29CHINESE THEFT OUTLINE
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-21 05:11:00 UTC
WHY REFORM IT? JUST REPLACE IT. DIVORCE AND START OVER?
I am pretty confident that the praxeological line of reasoning, as currently constructed, is a dead end, as I’ve argued elsewhere. In no small part because it cannot compete with the universality of the language and processes of the ratio-scientific method. But while an inferior method, it’s still a useful method. And if it helps people understand micro and ethics then that’s good enough.
The challenge at this inflection point in intellectual history, is that Hoppe has created the formal language of political ethics and political economy, and taught most of us to argue politics ethics and morality in economic terms. Yet that language is unnecessarily dependent upon Argumentation, Continental Rationalism, and a misguided attempt to conflate logic and science, in order to defend against a positivism that is not present in the philosophy or practice of science – if it ever was.
Logic is axiomatic, and therefore both prescriptive and deductive. Science is theoretic, and therefore descriptive and deductive. But we can make statements in logic that are internally consistent yet not externally correspondent, yet we cannot make theories that fail external correspondence, whether or not our language is internally consistent.
Comparative ethics, empirically studied, yields a universal descriptive ethics that is theoretically rigid and more sustainable from criticism than rothbardian ethics.
In all cultures and all civilizations, manners, ethics and morals reflect the necessary rules for organizing reproduction (the family) and the polity of families, such that they may cooperate in whatever structure of production is available to them. The content of those rules, under analysis, can be represented as property rights, each of which is distributed between the individual to the commons. Demand for third party authority as a means of resolving differences (the state) is determined by the degree of suppression of free riding (parasitism), and the number of competing sets of rules (family structures and classes) within any given structure of production. These sets of rules can be expressed as a simple formal grammar, which allows us to render all moral and ethical systems commensurable.
Macro economics, experimental psychology, and cognitive science have contributed all economic insights over the past three decades, and none of these insights were deducible (cognitive biases in particular), or were emergent effects of economic cooperation (stickiness of prices, the time delay until money achieves neutrality, and the quantitative impact on interest and production in the interim, within each sustainable pattern of specialization and trade.)
So, WHICH IS MORE PARSIMONIOUS A THEORY?
Which theory is easier to understand?
Which theory is more obscurant?
Which more accurately reflects reality?
I can explain and demonstrate this theory to anyone with a ratio-scientific background. I know this because it is simply an advancement to Ostrom’s work on institutions and she was able to do so.
Cheers.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-21 04:37:00 UTC
HIGH TIME PARENTING NOT HIGH INVESTMENT PARENTING
Strange watching people in other countries raise children. I was definitely raised in the puritan protestant tradition to be an independent person as soon as possible.
But you watch children in the states today and there is obviously something very wrong with them. Almost all of them. And then you come to a place with a traditional family like Ukraine, and watch the kids and … there isnt’ anything wrong with them. So what’s the difference?
They aren’t constantly trying to get attention from parents who don’t want to give it to them.
Now, it’s not high investment parenting. In fact, it’s kind of strange how LITTLE effort parents put into competitive child rearing. Instead, they just pay attention to them. A lot of attention. At home. WIth family.
That must be what it is that Iove about this country. I think that’s it. Americans are all desperately seeking attention on their terms. Here, nobody is. They’re seeking experiences, and wealth, and opportunity. But they’re not desperate for attention. They aren’t ‘crazy’ like so many americans. They aren’t desperately trying to find meaning in political movements, in environmental movements, in different kinds of spiritualism as a means of filling that hole in their souls.
Is it that simple?
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-21 04:34:00 UTC
So, can someone explain to me, why housing in the UK is such sh_t? I mean, people live in hovels. Even ‘nice’ homes are little more than rabbit warrens. Dark, low ceilings, small rooms, poorly laid out. Is it just habit? Remnants of socialism? Antique regulatory environment? Heating/cooling costs? What? I mean, in the states, the prices vary but in most of the country $200K US will get you a decent house and yard (garden) front and back. In large parts of the country $300K US will get you what what qualifies as a Manse in the UK.
Here in Ukraine you can get an amazing apartment overlooking the river in a new building for $200K. You can buy a dacha in the country for 75-150K. (albeit you can’t earn a living here worth a damn).
Why are homes so expensive (and claustrophobic) in the UK? I mean, Post 1980 US Northwest (ecotopia) architecture is actually pretty awesome, and entirely spacious, even if it’s a small house.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-21 03:09:00 UTC
ITS NOT THAT I DON’T UNDERSTAND THE RUSSIAN POSITION. IT”S THAT IT’S COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.
Watching russian documentaries. (I really love russians, which is why the attack on Ukraine is making me so angry.) It is so easy to understand the Russian position in the world. Their internal needs. Their vision of the future. Their criticism of the western suicidal way of life.
But to attack the west, and to give it excuses for militarizing, is just stupid. To use such blatant disinformation and deception, is just a stupid move. Russia is a small weak economy spread over a vast territory, and they’re surrounded. Put in had the western Right Wing eating out of his hand.
What an idiot. It’s a tragedy. It’s like Russians can never do the smart thing no matter what opportunity sits in front of them, they do the wrong thing.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-21 02:19:00 UTC
Economic velocity achieved with high trust in a stable population, is very different from economic velocity achieved with expansionary credit, in an expanding population. The first requires invention. The second only application.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-21 01:45:00 UTC
STATUS AS PROPERTY? BUT PEOPLE SURE ACT LIKE IT. RIGHT?
The fact that people defend their philosophical positions if their self image depends upon them is only confirmation that people treat status, even self image, as their property. I think If I explain truths and falsehoods – you can’t have a property right to falsehoods – this becomes clear. Just as you can’t claim market opportunities are property – because you don’t know if they’re true or not.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-20 23:27:00 UTC
A.E.L.
PRINCIPLES
1) Property rights are obtained by entering into a contract for reciprocal insurance of one another’s property by the promise of violence to defend it.
2) Property is that which humans demonstrate as their property: that which they act to obtain by homesteading or voluntary exchange, with
the expectation of possession. (See categories of property below)
3) Voluntary Exchange: Moral and ethical exchanges are defined as voluntary, fully informed, warrantied, exchange, free of negative externality.
4) Morality is objective and is prohibition on the transgression of the property of another : the necessary prohibition on free riding for any cooperative organism. We evolved these instincts, and our extreme intolerance for ‘cheating’ out of necessity, and these instincts remain. (see criminal, unethical, and immoral propositions below)
5) The law must sufficiently mirror known morality at any given time to suppress demand for an authority to suppress immoral actions, or the violence that results from immoral actions. While criminal and ethical standards are universal and objective, moral prohibitions consist of (a) necessary prohibitions on involuntary imposition of costs, (b) ritual and signal costs that members of a polity are use for signaling commitment, and which should not be enforced by law, but can be enforced by ostracization, (c) errors that are not reducible to free riding, and cannot be enforced by law, nor should they be enforced by ostracization.
6) Transaction costs of immoral and unethical behavior increase with a decrease in capacity to defend against them. Therefore it is not rational to expect people to choose a voluntary polity in the absence of a state without sufficient suppression of transaction costs to compete with the costs of the state that does suppress either the immoral and unethical behavior, or the violence that results from immoral and unethical behavior. AS such the moral and ethical standard embodied in the common law, necessary for a polity is determined by the relative transaction costs and opportunities of different polities. Since the highest trust polities demonstrate both the most suppression of unethical and immoral actions, as well as the highest velocity of risk, production and trade, it is an empirical question as to the level of suppression of unethical and immoral action that is required to maintain a competitive polity. But in no case will people rationally choose an unethical polity, and they never have. The opposite is true: unethical polities have been the victims of conquest, oppression and genocide.
CATEGORIES OF PROPERTY
Humans demonstrably act as though there are four categories of property:
I. Several (Personal) Property
– Personal property: “Things an individual has a Monopoly Of Control over the use of.”
– Physical Body
– Actions and Time
– Memories, Concepts and Identities: tools that enable us to plan and act. In the consumer economy this includes brands.
– Several Property: Those things we claim a monopoly of control over.
II. Interpersonal (Relationship) Property
Cooperative Property: “relationships with others and tools of relationships upon which we reciprocally depend.”
– Mates (access to sex/reproduction)
– Children (genetic reproduction)
– Familial Relations (security)
– Consanguineous Relations (tribal and family ties)
– Racial property (racial ties)
– Status and Class (reputation)
III. Institutional (Community) Property
Institutional Property: “Those objects into which we have invested our forgone opportunities, our efforts, or our material assets, in order to aggregate capital from multiple individuals for mutual gain.”
– Informal (Normative) Institutions: Our norms: manners, ethics and morals. Informal institutional property is nearly impossible to quantify and price. The costs are subjective and consists of forgone opportunities.
– Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion), Government, Laws. Formal institutional property is easy to price. costs are visible. And the productivity of the social order is at least marginally measurable.
IV. Artificial Property
Artificial Property: “Can a group issue specific rights to members?”
– Shares in property: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (claims for partial ownership)
– Monopoly Property such as intellectual property. (grants of monopoly within a geography)
– Trademarks and Brands (prohibitions on fraudulent transfers within a geography).
FORMS OF INVOLUNTARY TRANSFER
1-Direct Interpersonal
– Murder
– Violence
– Destruction
– Theft
– Theft by Fraud
– Theft by Fraud by omission
2 – Indirect Interpersonal
– Theft by Impediment
– Theft by Externalization
3 – Indirect Social
– Theft by Free riding
– Theft by privatization
– Theft by socialization
4 – Conspiratorial Social
– Theft by Rent seeking
– Theft by Complexity, Rule, Process or Obscurantism
– Theft by Extortion
5 – Conquest
– Murder, Destruction and Theft by War
– Immigration
– Conversion
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-20 16:53:00 UTC
THE GREAT DECEPTION : THE FALLACY OF AGGRESSION
Aggression is a deception. A convenient libertine ruse, to define property as that which is aggressable against, rather than property as that which people instinctually defend, as a violation of the terms of cooperation necessary for any species that does cooperate: free riding.
Aggression by definition legalizes unethical and immoral actions. As such it is, incontestably, the definition of LIBERTINISM , and NOT libertarianism.
I really can’t understand how we were misled by this fallacy for so long. Other than out of desperation and natural cognitive biases endemic to the autistic end of the spectrum.
Liberty is like truth: there is always more of it to be had, as we constantly innovate our means of cooperation. It’s not a state. It’s a process.
It is a lie, a deceptoin, a fraud, a moral crime against men who whish to be free, to perpetuate the fallacy that property is defined by aggression rather than transgression defined by property.
The means of transgression is immaterial.
The only rule we need is property.
The origin of property is the prevention of free riding.
Free riding, as in, the imposition of costs, the imposition of involutary transfer, or any other means other than the fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of property.
Period.
Rothbard is dead. His ideas are dead. His movement is dead. And we should spit on his grave for the damage he has done.
Aristocratic Egalitarianism:
1) Property rights are obtained by reciprocal insurance of one anther’s property by the promise of violence to defend it.
2) Property is that which humans demonstrate as their property: that which they act to obtain by homesteading or voluntary exchange, with the expectation of possession.
3) Morality is objective and is prohibition on the transgression of the property of another : the necessary prohibition on free riding for any cooperative organism.
4) The law must sufficiently mirror known morality at any given time to suppress demand for an authority to suppress immoral actions, or the violence that results from immoral actions.
Welcome to aristocracy. We take all comers. But not libertines. They’re free riders. Immoral and unethical by definition.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-20 15:02:00 UTC
Why? For honor and glory. Isn’t that enough?
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-20 14:19:00 UTC