Source: Facebook

  • Seattle Celebrating

    Seattle Celebrating


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-06 10:28:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    https://secure.freedomworks.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1344

    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-06 10:20:00 UTC

  • HOW DO WE USE SCIENCE TO CONSTRUCT OUR PERCEPTION OF REALITY? Science is the con

    HOW DO WE USE SCIENCE TO CONSTRUCT OUR PERCEPTION OF REALITY?

    Science is the construction of calculable analogies to experience by means of instrumentation consisting of tools for correspondence and logics for coherence.

    (reposted for archiving purposes)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-06 10:18:00 UTC

  • ARISTOCRACY – WE HAD IT RIGHT ALL ALONG What other scientific evidence of good d

    ARISTOCRACY – WE HAD IT RIGHT ALL ALONG

    What other scientific evidence of good discipline, good judgement, good parenting, is there than three successive generations of family success?

    When one has wealth and status then what achievements can one reach for? Culture. Arts. Civics.

    We had it right for most of our history. In an effort to steal control from a reluctant aristocracy dependent upon the productivity of land, we invented a number of lies: equality the most damaging of them.

    Had membership in our house of aristocracy depended entirely upon demonstrated economic merit for three generations rather than the loyalty of titled heredity, we could have survived the transition from the productivity of land to the productivity of manufacturing, finance and trade.

    Had we created a house of proletarians rather than surrendering the house of common land owners to the mass of rent-seekers, so that the natural division of the classes could cooperate via exchange between those houses, we could have survived their introduction into both the economy and the polity.

    Women, who in every walk of life prefer to exercise care taking, would control the house of the proletarians. Men the house of commons and lords. And the competition provided by the church would have been replaced by the lowest house as a means of resistance against exploitation.

    Instead we adopted simple majority rule, thereby destroying thousands of years of the principle difference between the west and the rest: the balance of powers and the necessity for forcing a compromise between different interests in the absence of authority, given the assumption of individual sovereignty as the common good, versus an abstract unknowable concept of the common good involuntarily prosecuted upon the public.

    That was our mistake. We had everything else right.

    It may be too late to correct it. But the first step in fixing a problem is understanding the cause of it.

    We had it right all along.

    We did it. And only we did it. No other civilizations managed it.

    Property = Sovereignty = Balance of Powers.

    I have no problem being ruled by the best of each class.

    I do have a problem being ruled by the worst of each class.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-06 06:07:00 UTC

  • DRAFT: UNIVERSAL, DESCRIPTIVE AND PRESCRIPTIVE ETHICS : ETHICAL REALISM (ethics)

    DRAFT: UNIVERSAL, DESCRIPTIVE AND PRESCRIPTIVE ETHICS : ETHICAL REALISM

    (ethics) (this is a very tight logical box and I will make it tighter yet)

    PART 1 : UNIVERSAL, DESCRIPTIVE ETHICS

    ———————————–

    I. All moral rules in all cultures are possible to translate into prohibitions that attempt to solve the fundamental problem of cooperation: the suppression of free riding; the involuntary transfer, extraction, or destruction of assets, while at the same time facilitating all cooperation that functions as a multiplier of productivity – leading to the division of knowledge and labor, and the constant reduction of costs from that division. We are not superior to cave men. We have just made everything infinitely cheaper through the division of knowledge and labor and the application of a host of technologies.

    II. Humans accumulate and defend many things, and they resent loss of them. They do so because they either must (life and kin) or because they have invested time, opportunity and effort in accumulating them. Cooperative Life cannot persist without these prohibitions.

    1) Life (time)

    2) Kin and Mates

    3) Relationships

    4) Territory

    5) Material Inventory

    6) Status

    7) Commons

    8) Norms, Myths, traditions, institutions.

    9) Plans, Beliefs, Recipes.

    III. Humans demonstrate vehement reaction to and prohibition of the following categories of involuntary deprivation of their assets:

    1) Criminal Prohibitions (Murder, harm, destruction, theft – physical extraction)

    2) Ethical Prohibitions (fraud, omission, interference – asymmetry of knowledge)

    3) Moral Prohibitions (privatization, socialization, free riding – absence of knowledge)

    4) Conspiratorial Prohibitions (rent seeking, corruption, extortion, protection, taxation)

    5) Conquest Prohibitions (war, displacement, immigration, religious conversion, cultural competition)

    IV. Variations in those moral rules are determined by a compromise between the following problems:

    1) the reproductive strategy of the gender, class and group.

    2) the structure of production (the economy).

    3) the structure of the family unit necessary in any given structure of production.

    4) the inheritance pattern once assets can be accumulated.

    5) the degree of outbreeding in the polity (the extent of the taboo on inbreeding)

    6) the metaphysical value judgements between man and nature that were determined during the formation of cultural norms out of feast celebrations in the ‘great transformation’ era.

    7) the genetic and cultural homogeneity or diversity of the local economy (Islands vs borders vs unlanded/diasporic vs gypsy/pastoral).

    V. ***All moral sentiments, in all societies, are reactions to the perception of changes in state of those assets as determined by the criminal, ethical and moral prohibitions. In all humans, in all cultures, in all civilizations.***

    PART 2: UNIVERSAL, PRESCRIPTIVE ETHICS

    ————————————

    I. Given that moral rules consist of the prohibition of criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial and conquest behavior, what remains is voluntary exchange of assets according to the group’s portfolio of moral and ethical rules.

    II. Trust. (undone)

    1) (transaction cost and velocity)

    2) Low trust societies prohibit only crime, high trust societies prohibit unethical and immoral transfers, and currently no cultures persist in prohibiting conspiratorial behavior since it is a consequence state function, and as yet we have no technology for suppressing state monopoly bureaucracy and corruption while preserving the state’s use in suppressing criminal, unethical and immoral behavior.

    III. Humans rely upon these necessary reductions in transaction costs to continue to expand productivity.

    1) Humans Signal their moral commitment with manners, language, and consumption (dress, possessions, etc).

    2) Humans demonstrate preference for association with those who use the same signals because those signals communicate lower transaction costs.

    3) Status Signals are cheaper with higher return in-group than out-group except at the extreme margins.

    (… more on transaction costs…)

    4) Urbanization appears to both decrease opportunity costs, and increase productivity by 15-20% (and all the bad things too) with every doubling of the population. People in urban areas move, as under the european monarchies, into neighborhoods ‘with their own’. This appears to ostracize the middle class to the suburbs.

    IV. Moral rules reflect necessary group evolutionary strategies.

    1) the group cannot survive local competition (not to mention, guns germs and steel) without a successful evolutionary strategy.

    2) Groups demonstrate that they are materially different in their abilities, in the distribution of abilities, particularly verbal and spatial intelligence.

    3) Groups demonstrate that they are materially different in the distribution of desirability for mating (symmetry, proportion and thickness of skin.)

    4) Groups demonstrate significant differences in the distribution of impulsivity and ‘malleability’. (Appears to be testosterone)

    5) Aggressiveness (Appears to be more complex than just testosterone).

    6) The distribution of verbal intelligence appears to heavily determine three factors:

    a) Morality since it rapidly declines under 95IQ.

    b) Trust and therefore economic performance for the same reason.

    c) Sufficient distribution over ~105IQ to concentrate productive capital a Pareto distribution (80/20) in the hands of those who can make use of property for group benefit.

    V. It is impossible to rationally adjudicate conflicts across different moral codes. (Which is why America is ‘coming apart’.) But it is ALSO necessary for groups to follow different in-group evolutionary strategies. Therefore it is not possible to morally construct large scale societies that consist of high trust economies. (As we see the Nordic states are small homogenous absolute nuclear family states that are highly outbred). It would have been possible in American had we not destroyed the Absolute Nuclear Family as a normative requirement for citizenship, political participation, and economic survival. But since we have the only solution is fragmentation or tyranny.

    However, if it is not possible to adjudicate moral rules across heterogeneous polities, without committing genocide, it is possible to adjudicate commercial exchanges between heterogeneous polities with different moral codes, since commerce between disconnected polities is constrained only by violence, theft and fraud, as well as prohibitions on conquest. While local polities and local interactions are ADDITIONALLY constrained by manners, ethics, morals, and prohibitions on corruption and conquest. And those local polities must be otherwise they would be rendered economically immobile by high transaction costs (Somalia).

    VI. Meritocratic societies (that suppress free riding) that practice assortative mating and the nuclear family appear to produce sufficiently eugenic reproduction that it is possible to keep ahead of malthusian constraints and genetic regression toward the mean. While equalitarian societies (with pervasive free riding) whether they practice assortative mating in extended families or not, and particularly if they practice inbreeding, cannot appear to defeat Malthus nor the pressure of regression towards the mean.

    VII. THEREFORE

    Assuming that dysgenic reproduction is undesirable (and I admit that this is a preference, but certainly a scientifically and evolutionarily arguable one), the purpose of political institutions is:

    1) To facilitate cooperation between groups for on means, but not ends, where the market cannot satisfy means or ends, because competition or privatization of commons would result in extraction from the commons or free riding on the commons.

    2) To facilitate redistribution for consumption but not for reproduction.

    3) To encourage a multitude of small populations with heterogeneous moral codes suitable to their reproductive and evolutionary strategies – each of whom can negotiate trade, and thereby compensate for their differences in ability and preference.

    4) To construct a single universal commercial code (which the anglo civilization has been doing by force of arms for 500 years) that enforces prohibitions on violence theft and fraud regardless of in-group preferences.

    5) To replace the natural corruption of political representation, monopoly bureaucracy, and arbitrary legislation, with rule of law, contract, insurer of last resort, and private provision of public goods via competing insurance providers.

    6) To facilitate relative equality WITHIN groups with the same evolutionary strategy (if they so desire it) but not ACROSS groups with different evolutionary strategies.

    AND IT FOLLOWS

    When you interfere with manners, ethics, morals, family structure, and production, if you are not INCREASING the suppression of free riding, you are damaging someone’s reproductive strategy and status.

    PART III : ETHICAL RULES

    PART IV : LANGUAGE (undone)

    ——————

    ( analogy to experience, operational statements, loading, framing)

    ( problem of complexity and necessity of compression)

    ( the difference between the necessary honesty of law and exchange and the utility of literary loading and framing)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-05 19:43:00 UTC

  • SOME AUSSIE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME THE NATIONAL FASCINATION WITH GAMBLING? This is

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/02/daily-chart-0WILL SOME AUSSIE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME THE NATIONAL FASCINATION WITH GAMBLING?

    This is crazy. Must be a reason for it. Are the game odds worse? Or are aussies just really bad gamblers?


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-05 16:54:00 UTC

  • STATE OF THE ART (personal fears) I feel really comfortable with jumping off whe

    STATE OF THE ART

    (personal fears)

    I feel really comfortable with jumping off where Penelope Maddy left off with her Second Philosopher’s AREALISM, and transforming her basic arguments into realism via operational language. That’s not hard. That solves the problem of communicating the death of platonism.

    As for contemporary philosophy, it looks like there are only two active philosophers worth following. Which is kind of scary if you think about it. The most heralded philosophers are largely the continentals now. A fact which I find terrifying. Because it’s just elaborate christian mysticism trying to justify socialism. (It’s creepy. It’s the mental equivalent of working on weaponizing the bird flu virus into an unstoppable plague. But since we’ve had a number of conceptual plagues – most of them by jewish authors for some reason or other, which I can’t comprehend: zoroaster, abraham, jesus, peter and paul, muhammed, rousseau, kant, marx, freud, cantor, heidegger – I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that the effort to formulate a new religion continues unabated. )

    There are two good and active philosophers: Searle and Dennett. Otherwise contemporary philosophy is a desert. I am not brave enough to think I”m in that class of minds. I’m not. I just stumbled on the right answers like the poor fellows who discovered Lexan. But I have definitely solved the following problems so far as ethics, politics and political economy are concerned:

    1) Mathematical Realism. (I seem to be the only one to do this.)

    2) Ethical Realism. (I seem to be the only one to do this)

    3) The unification of philosophical disciplines

    4) The formal logic of cooperation.

    5) The institutions of morally heterogeneous polities. And given that I don’t think I’ve really stated anything terribly novel in the institutional solutions department, all I have done is provide an explanation of why a particular set of solutions are scientific, rational, ethical, moral and just. Rather than some arbitrary moralistic Hail Mary play. (see Rawls.)

    I understand Kripke’s innovation pretty clearly I think. But I still think that the solution to internally consistent logic is replaced by the logic of cooperation. I just don’t know if I can really take that line of thought any further into a critique of formal logic. So I don’t know the impact that operational language would have on formal logic. So far as I can tell, the problem is no longer one of language and statements but the reducibility of statements to human action. If you grok that one change alone, then you sort of understand all you need to.

    I can sort of reconcile this with Kripke. Although I have to go back and re-read Naming and Necessity again with my current understanding and see if my previous understanding holds up.

    BUT THE PROBLEM WILL BE READABILITY

    I still think it’s going to be hard without the help of a patient editor to capture these ideas as a coherent whole. I can make a philosophy that you can study once you understand it’s value. But I don’t think I can sell someone on that philosophy through easy of comprehension. I have reduced most of the central arguments to pretty simple concepts. But holding the reader’s hand through the journey is a lot harder than simply stating the definitions and methods. I just don’t think I can do it. I don’t think so because I understand the problem of the limit that one can hold in short term memory. And my crutch to get around that problem is to use the text as the short term memory that I don’t have, but that most great authors do have. So far my only solution has been to just keep trying until I can reduce it. But at this point I’m not sure that I’m making further progress at reduction.

    ie: I’m afraid to put finger to keyboard. It’s a lot of work. It’s a lot easier to let months pass improving on minor points than it is to tackle the equivalent of Elinor Ostrom’s grammar. I know full well that I’ve completed the ethics, the philosophy, the institutions and the applications. But I’m afraid to confront my inadequacy as a writer. So afraid that it’s hindering me.

    Not sure what to do other than power through it in a snowy chalet somewhere… Not afraid of much really. Not afraid of dying even. But I’m afraid to fail at this for sure…..


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-05 16:39:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM SOLVES THE PROBLEM OF RENDERING LEFT LIBERTARIANISM POSSIBLE, RA

    PROPERTARIANISM SOLVES THE PROBLEM OF RENDERING LEFT LIBERTARIANISM POSSIBLE, RATIONAL, MORAL, CALCULABLE WHILE PRESERVING PROPERTY RIGHTS.

    I’m not advocating left libertarianism. I’m just stating that it’s possible. And it’s possible to articulate internally consistently with propertarian reasoning. And that’s a whole lot better than the Bleeding Heart Libertarians have done to date. (Not much.)

    I mean, I love their sentiments, but it’s a sentimental, not rational or scientific movement without Propertarianism to base their arguments upon.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-05 14:08:00 UTC

  • DOES “HIGH TRUST” MEAN? HIGH TRUST = LOW TRANSACTION COSTS = HIGH QUANTITY AND V

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Basis_of_a_Backward_SocietyWHAT DOES “HIGH TRUST” MEAN?

    HIGH TRUST = LOW TRANSACTION COSTS = HIGH QUANTITY AND VELOCITY OF EXCHANGE = GREATER WEATH AT LOWER RISK.

    (the not so obvious but obvious)

    When we say ‘high trust’ and ‘low trust’ what we mean, is the willingness that one has to conduct a contract, whether formal or informal, with a random party that is not a member of your friends or family.

    In a low trust society you can only really trust personal relations. In a very low trust society you can only really trust family members. In a high trust society you can trust the average person on the street as thoroughly as you can a friend or family member. (Often more so than family members.)

    And given that politicians are universally corrupt, and that we depend upon judges and juries enforce this universal trust, and that judges and juries consist of people from the community, then the community must consist of high trust members for the system to perpetuate itself. So how does one construct a high trust society? Well, western europeans did it with property rights, prohibition on inbreeding and cousin marriage, and prohibition on marriage and child rearing until one had home and hearth.

    Other than hiring a legion of northern european jurists, adopting the common law, requiring wills, granting universal private property rights, prohibiting cousin marriage out to four or six generations, prohibiting cohabitation between generations, it’s pretty much impossible.

    And feminists and socialists are doing everything in their power to dismantle the total prohibition on free riding that the northern european people have created over five thousand years, but most importantly in the past 1500.

    Those of us who claim to be ‘gentlemen’, will often do business on a handshake. Doing business by handshake is a status symbol. For me, I have always said that “I made a deal, we stick to the deal” because this preserves your ability to make deals with high trust. Sometimes we fail.

    One of my long time business partners was notorious for constantly revising deals for his own convenience. Which makes me a bit nuts. But people put up with it from him because he always appears to be so honest. But the truth is, it’s an act. He’s always acting in his own pragmatic interest.

    Using rural Italy as the example, the first and best work is the Moral Basis of a Backward Society by Edward Banfield.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-05 13:41:00 UTC

  • INSTITUTIONS IN A NUTSHELL (elegance from Peter Boettke) “I argue that in assess

    INSTITUTIONS IN A NUTSHELL

    (elegance from Peter Boettke)

    “I argue that in assessing the workability of utopian schemes we must first subject them to a coherence test, and then a test of their vulnerability to opportunism. Schemes that are incoherent are deemed impossible; schemes that are coherent but vulnerable are impractical; and only schemes that are both coherent and invulnerable should be considered in the feasible set of workable utopias.”– Peter Boettke

    I’ll translate that into propertarian language as: the minimum requirement for any theory of cooperation requires internal consistency, and external correspondence, where external correspondence is defined as increasing cooperation without increasing the potential for criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial, corrupt and conquest behaviors.

    In practice I suspect that Peter would argue that he covers all forms of free riding in his definition of opportunism, But I think it is possible to constrain criminal, unethical, and immoral behavior while preserving conspiratorial behavior (corruption. ie:statism)

    So, given the permissiveness that socialists grant to bureaucrats a more granular definition is required in order to address both private and public actors with an equally pejorative prohibition.

    At the very worst, my definition educates the reader with a more rigid test.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-05 12:09:00 UTC