THANK RUSSIANS AND CHINESE: THERE IS NO NEW WORLD ORDER WITHOUT THE MYTH OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.
Maybe we should just thank the Russians and the Chinese for their contribution to anarchy.
I mean, first they disprove socialism.
Now they disprove postmodernism.
I mean, the bad guys really do all the hard work for us, don’t they?
The collapse of the progressive fantasy continues.
🙂
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-18 08:31:00 UTC
WHY DO PROPERTY RIGHTS ‘WORK’?
Property rights ‘work’ because they establish a monopoly of control over fragments of the physical world, and without that monopoly of control it’s impossible to both plan their use and possess the incentive to act in accordance with plan.
All creatures demonstrate some concept of possession or property. (See Butler Schaeffer).
Without property rights, a voluntarily organized division of labor is not possible. The degree of the division of labor (atomicity) is determined by the atomicity of property rights. The atomicity of property rights must compete with the reproductive structure of the family. So that is why different family structures use different moral codes – largely dependent upon the method of assigning land in agrarian societies. Our moral code is an agrarian moral code.
The conflict in ethics has been exacerbated by increases in population with conflicting moral codes, and the rapid decline since 1890 in the productivity of unskilled labor.
So while populations are increasing, the number of people engaged in productive work isn’t necessarily doing so. Most people today are filling in ‘holes’ where production has lagged because of communism. But in the developed world, we have more people than we have work for. And without the credit that we can currently easily manufacture, we will contract father.
This trend has no chance of abating. Just the opposite.
So, under this form of production, given this distribution of abilities, given the distribution of family structures, then what is the moral and ethical basis of society?
I have tried to answer this problem. I think I have. But there is no way to be sure other than to test it.
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-18 08:03:00 UTC
VICTORY!!!! WHOOT.
(personal) (philosophy) (innovation)
I figured it out!!!! (It pays to keep at a problem until you solve it.)
As the author of (many) shareholder agreements, and participant in (many) lawsuits I have always been troubled by the structure of law. I’ve always intuited the problem. But it never quite got to the answer.
I knew the golden rule and the silver rule contained a hint at that answer but I couldn’t quite figure out why. Until now.
Last year I worked on the problem of platonism. I knew the answer was in mathematical philosophy. I just had to master it.
This year I’m working on formal logic. What are the grammar, syntax, rules, and method for the formal logic of cooperation (ethics and politics)?
By about 2010, living in Ottawa, I was able to understand, loosely, the human cognitive problems in converting an intuitive and normative discourse rhetoric of ethics, into a formal and calculative logic of ethics.
I outlined the propertarian method of analysis. But there was this enormous hole in it. It was descriptive alone. How does one construct ETHICAL law as theory? Meaning, how does one construct law while prohibiting in voluntary transfer? And how does one construct a process by which the ethical rules cannot be violated by ‘linguistic means’.
Since all law is theory, but the costs of those theories are very high, how do you construct law as theory open to revision without corruption? The scientific method emerged from science, but the method of science is applicable to all human epistemology, not just science. So the scientific method is just ‘the method of constructing theories both logically and ethically’.
The common law and conservatism are both ‘scientific’ in the sense that their theories are open to constant revision by evidence. But as we have seen from the american constitution, that the constitution was too poorly constructed to resist attacks.
So how do we construct a constitution (theory of law) that is subject to the same constraints as ‘the method’ that we call the scientific method?
The truth is that the founders did include a process: the modification of the constitution by procedural means. But the differences between the interests of the states was so great that it exceeded the respect for the constitution.
The Louisiana purchase made those differences in tolerable since it would have meant the conquest of one society by the other (the south would have conquered the north via political process) the north retaliated with war – over territory.
Then upon immigration of large numbers of catholics and jews from lower trust societies, and the inclusion of women into the voting pool as equal to heads of absolute nuclear households and businesses, the constitution was broken – first by the introduction of the fed and credit money, then by the depression that resulted from the combination.
So the existing law was not well enough articulated such that it was not open to ‘hermeneutic interpretation’, and outright assault.
How does one construct ethical theories in formal logic of cooperation?
How does one construct law from formal ethical logic of cooperation?
It’s fascinating. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-18 07:17:00 UTC
http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/03/11/digital-life-in-2025/PEW RESEARCH ON LIFE IN 2025
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-17 20:59:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a photo.
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-16 23:22:00 UTC
great story
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-16 23:20:00 UTC
http://www.internationalrealist.com/2011/11/why-we-will-soon-miss-cold-war-john.htmlWHY THREATS ARE SAFER
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-16 22:58:00 UTC
Having fun this morning watching the pundits around the world reposition themselves on all sorts of things. The most interesting is that given European energy dependency upon Russia, the eastern turn of Russia to the Chinese model,
In 2008 and 2009 it was very interesting to watch all the economists change their point of view on the trajectory of the economy. Right now it’s pretty interesting to see them change their view on the trajectory of social democracy.
I might have been blinded by being emotionally so involved in the passions in Ukraine. But, as long as Ukrainians remain free of Russian occupation, the net result here might be the end of the “end of history” and the illusion of a unified world.
I want to put a bullet in the European Union, the American Federal Government, and “Universalism”.
And this actually helps. And an emboldened china helps even more.
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-16 22:50:00 UTC
–“Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country”–
Yes, well it’s a nuclear gas station masquerading as a country.
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-16 22:41:00 UTC
MESSAGE GOES MAINSTREAM: RUSSIA A ROGUE STATE
–“Russia is rapidly emerging as a rogue state from which even its traditional allies are turning away.”– Financial Times
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-16 22:14:00 UTC