Source: Facebook

  • PROPERTY AS THE SUPPRESSION OF DISCOUNTS. (profound)(important) The Central Prob

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2013/12/22/propertarianism-vs-libertarianism-universally-descriptive-vs-preferentially-prescriptive-but-still-all-rights-as-property-rights/PRIVATE PROPERTY AS THE SUPPRESSION OF DISCOUNTS.

    (profound)(important)

    The Central Problem of Human Cooperation Is Suppression and Prevention of Free-Riding.

    Private property rights, or rather, absolute private property rights, effectively place a ban on all free riding. The use of the state to police the prevention of free riding, transforms free riding into rent seeking both inside the government and out.

    We advocate private property.

    However that confuses consequence with cause. If we suppress all free riding in a society, we are left with absolute private property and the high trust society.

    The state is a means for restoring the ability of people to conduct free riding via rent seeking while forcing the productive classes ever harder onto the hamster wheel of competition.

    In this long article, I summarize propertarianism, and the construction of property rights via the total suppression of free riding (technically, in economic terms, ‘discounts’).

    This helps illustrate the cause of which private property is the result.

    (Edited version of prior post)


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-22 15:22:00 UTC

  • PROPERTY AS THE SUPPRESSION OF DISCOUNTS. (profound)(important) The Central Prob

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2013/12/22/propertarianism-vs-libertarianism-universally-descriptive-vs-preferentially-prescriptive-but-still-all-rights-as-property-rightsPRIVATE PROPERTY AS THE SUPPRESSION OF DISCOUNTS.

    (profound)(important)

    The Central Problem of Human Cooperation Is Suppression and Prevention of Free-Riding.

    Private property rights, or rather, absolute private property rights, effectively place a ban on all free riding. The use of the state to police the prevention of free riding, transforms free riding into rent seeking both inside the government and out.

    We advocate private property.

    However that confuses consequence with cause. If we suppress all free riding in a society, we are left with absolute private property and the high trust society.

    The state is a means for restoring the ability of people to conduct free riding via rent seeking while forcing the productive classes ever harder onto the hamster wheel of competition.

    In this long article, I summarize propertarianism, and the construction of property rights via the total suppression of free riding (technically, in economic terms, ‘discounts’).

    This helps illustrate the cause of which private property is the result.

    (Edited version of prior post)


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-22 15:01:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-godsey/for-the-first-time-ever-a_b_4221000.html


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-22 13:00:00 UTC

  • “In my opinion, the central goal of Judeo-Christian ethics is to nurture a commu

    “In my opinion, the central goal of Judeo-Christian ethics is to nurture a community within which adults can recreate the happiness of childhood.” – Kenneth Allen Hopf


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-22 12:59:00 UTC

  • ARE NORMS ARBITRARY AND DIALECTICAL OR OBSCURANT BUT PROPERTARIAN? (PLUS NOTES O

    ARE NORMS ARBITRARY AND DIALECTICAL OR OBSCURANT BUT PROPERTARIAN? (PLUS NOTES ON OUR MOVEMENT)

    ( Riffing off Rod Long, not criticizing. OK? )

    Long: “…the meanings of normatively loaded concepts stand in reciprocal determination.”

    This is correct. It’s the answer to most false moral dilemmas, that are conveniently bandied about in pop philosophy as meaningful arguments. However, I want to use that as a jumping off point:

    Doolittle: Norms are most generally statements of property rights, obscured by complexity and loading.

    “A Dialectic? A Competition? Or obscurity due to complexity, but reflective of consistent rules? Arguments in favor of Dialectical processes are, I think, excuses for failure to understand causal properties on one hand or deceptions on the other. Competitions are logical and necessary reactions to changes; particularly innovation. Obscurity and complexity simply overwhelm reason, but I suspect not intuition. Intuition on norms, is quite simple: what we call property. Albeit, that the human intuition’s definition of property is ‘that which I act to demonstrate is property, and anticipate its persistence as property’. ie: norms are generally reducible to statements of property rights. This distinguishes normatively loaded concepts from normative rules.”

    Libertarians :

    – Hoppe (Rational libertarianism – Institutions of Political Economy.)

    – Kinsella (Moral libertarianism in the Rothbardian model.)

    – Long (intellectual historian and master of argument.)

    – De Witt ( analysis and presentation)

    – Doolittle (ratio-scientific propertarianism)

    – Hopf (critical rationalism)

    – Stewart ( Library. Research. Editor. our ‘David Gordon’ )

    The Dark Enlightenment: (Most of whom are involuntary members in the rebellion against the errors of the enlightenment, both anglo and french.)

    See: http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/the-dark-enlightenment-by-nick-land/

    – Jayman (statistics, behavior and genetics)

    – iSteve (norms and genes produce materially different biases and outcomes that are not voluntarily open to adoption except at the margins. And therefore political heterogeneity is impossible without conquest.)

    – Emmanuel Todd, Avner Grief, et al. via HBD Chick (Marriage and Morality)

    – Ricardo Duchesne: historical origins of western culture, genetics and thought.

    – Stephan Hicks : against obscurant anti-rationalism in politics and philosophy.

    – MacDonald: against critique over invention.

    – IQ (legions)

    – Ridley (male and female relations)

    – Keegan and VDHanson on War and Conflict.

    – Haidt – political morality

    – And of course, Mencius is in there somewhere.

    Conservatives write better books. 🙂

    (I don’t take papers seriously until I see books. Papers and articles are patents and advertising for intellectuals. Books are products testable in the marketplace of ideas. Books are open to criticism, and application in the market of ideas. And the evidence is that the ‘paper and journal’ economy is of little value compared to the ‘book’ economy of ideas.)

    Libertarians place more influence on rules of law and trade than we do on family, formal institutions and norms. Conservatives place more influence on family, genes, institutions, and norms. But the truth is the combination of the two is necessary. Libertarianism without conservatism is an untenable philosophy. Because we are not infinitely fungible creatures.

    SETTLED AND UNSETTLED MATTERS

    1) I consider the heritability of IQ settled science. As well as the impact of IQ on the means of education and the degree of repetition by imitation, as well as placing a limit on concepts that can be held.

    2) I believe the Nature vs Nurture argument will be solved this decade, the only question being whether it’s a 60-40 or 80-20 argument. And I am fairly sure it’s 80-20.

    3) I consider the Diversity argument settled science, if for signaling purposes only, regardless of differences in intelligence, race (appearance), culture, and reproductive marital structure. I think these differences will confirm and harden the signaling, not alter it. Even if signaling is just the ‘language’ of those differences.

    4) I consider the criticisms of universal democracy a settled matter both empirically and rationally. Democracy is just a slow road to tyrannical communism because of our material differences.

    5) I consider the question of scale settled science, and that the only valuable function of scale is insurance (in all aspects), and that the swiss model is the only possible model for liberty and libertarian communities.

    6) I consider propertarianism the ‘Fourth Reason’ (Reason and logic: instrumentation of thought, Numbers and Mathematics: instrumentation of relations, Physics: instrumentation of causes. Propertarianism or ‘property’: Instrumentation of Cooperation.)

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-22 08:16:00 UTC

  • UNPLEASANT. BUT THAT’S IT

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100251229/passive-smoking-another-of-the-nanny-states-big-lies/OBVIOUS. UNPLEASANT. BUT THAT’S IT.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-22 05:54:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/3869117/General-George-S.-Patton-was-assassinated-to-silence-his-criticism-of-allied-war-leaders-claims-new-book.html


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-22 01:59:00 UTC

  • THE NAP IS A TEST, PRIVATE PROPERTY IS A THEORY, AND HERE ARE THE CAUSES AND CON

    THE NAP IS A TEST, PRIVATE PROPERTY IS A THEORY, AND HERE ARE THE CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES.

    ( @MATT Zwolinski : Your answer.)

    ( @ Stephan Kinsella: I ‘m going to try to improve your language a bit, because the problem you’re having is the use of the term ‘fundamental’. In ratio-scientific terms, in the operational language of action theory and test are the appropriate terms.)

    ——-NAP IS A TEST NOT A THEORY———

    The NAP is an epistemic test of whether private property rights have been violated. It is an exceptional test. But that is the limit of it. One still needs a theory to test.

    —THE THEORY IS ‘ALL’ RIGHTS ARE PROPERTY RIGHTS—-

    The theory is that ALL RIGHTS can be reduced to property rights. Even commons can be reduced to shares of individual property rights. Even norms can be reduced to property rights.

    ——-VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS—————

    (Theory of morality and law) (No diagram yet, sorry)

    I. CAUSAL AXES

    Two axis:

    Axis 1 : Means of Influence.

    Axis 2 : Deception: the truth or falsehood of statements.

    II. WEAPNS OF INFLUENCE

    We humans have invented only three weapons of influence.

    Influence 1) Force – (Violence and Law)

    Influence 2) Exclusion – (Moral Rules and Boycotting)

    Influence 3) Remuneration – (Exchange and Commerce)

    III. DISCOUNTS

    However:

    Discount 1) we can use permutations of the above to extract DISCOUNTS.

    Discount 2) we can use deception to extract discounts.

    IV. FORMS OF DISCOUNT

    1. Violence (asymmetry of force)

    2. Theft (asymmetry of control)

    3. Fraud (false information)

    4. Omission (Omitting information)

    5. Obstruction (Inhibiting someone else’s transaction)

    6. Externalization (externalizing costs of any transaction)

    7. Free Riding (using externalities for self benefit)

    8. Socializing Losses (externalization to commons)

    9. Privatizing Gains (appropriation of commons)

    10. Rent Seeking (organizational free riding)

    11. Corruption ( organized rent seeking)

    12. Conspiracy (organized indirect theft)

    12. Extortion (Organized direct theft)

    13. War (organized violence)

    ——-NAP’S WEAKNESS——–

    The NAP, as used in libertarian ideological discourse, suffers from the weakness of the low trust society, in that it relies entirely upon Ostracization to suppress various forms of fraud.

    The high trust, aristocratic egalitarian society of the northern Protestant west, relies on the ADDITION of these moral constraints to the NAP:

    a) Truth: Truthful statements

    b) Symmetry: Complete statements

    c) Warranty: proof of true and complete statements.

    d) Proof of Work : that one profits only from adding value (doing work).

    e) Externality: Other than by competition you may not externalize costs.

    1) Respect property.

    2) Speak the whole truth.

    3) Your word is your warranty, and you will be held to it.

    4) And you must actual do work not profit from misfortune.

    —HIGH TRUST IS A PROHIBITION ON DISCOUNTS—

    These rules prohibit discounts. The only reason to eschew violence and engage in exchange is if ALL discounts are prohibited from the market, and therefore, by consequence, all improvements are in the construction and distribution of goods, and NOT in the verbal means of selling those goods.

    —AS SUCH ALL CONFLICT IS PRESSED INTO THE MARKET —

    Not the market for words, but the market for goods and services. And since the only possible means of competing is innovation in production and distribution, then such societies will innovate in production and distribution faster than all others. So not only do such rules that place a prohibition on both violence, theft, and discounts foster peace and prosperity, it fosters innovation, and trust.

    —THE GHETTO VS THE ARISTOCRACY —

    This is the ethic of the high trust society, and the only society every to invent and employ liberty – the protestant west. It may be unclear that the Absolute Nuclear family is yet again another institution that forbids discounts. And that is why ANF families from northern european cultures prefer liberty, and NF and Traditional families from southern Europe prefer more of the state: because ANF Families suppress all free riding and NF and Traditional families do not.

    ANF and property rights are eugenic and ostracizing. They are the rights of aristocratic egalitarians. The rights of those who can compete. Those that cannot compete do not seek those rights as they view free riding and rent seeking at the very least to be necessary for competitive survival.

    That is all that there is to understand about politics.

    —ROTHBARD GAVE US REDUCTION TO PROPERTY RIGHTS–

    But the rest is weak.

    Rothbardian’s NAP is the ethic of the ghetto. It is not the high trust ethic of the northern europeans, and certainly not a sufficient ethic to allow a low friction common law society to function without a strong state.

    For this reason the NAP is insufficient, and it is the reason for the failure of rothbardian, libertarian ethics to gain any acceptance in the population.

    The reason being, that it’s too low a bar.

    As far as I know, this is the current state of our knowledge.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-21 12:18:00 UTC

  • THE LEFT: “FOOD SHORTAGES, MOB VIOLENCE, ARBITRARY EXECUTIONS” “The French Revol

    THE LEFT: “FOOD SHORTAGES, MOB VIOLENCE, ARBITRARY EXECUTIONS”

    “The French Revolution was their chance to show what they could do when they got the power they sought. In contrast to what they promised — “liberty, equality, fraternity” — what they actually produced were food shortages, mob violence, and dictatorial powers that included arbitrary executions, extending even to their own leaders, such as Robespierre, who died under the guillotine.

    In the 20th century, the most sweeping vision of the Left — Communism — spread over vast regions of the world and encompassed well over a billion human beings. Of these, millions died of starvation in the Soviet Union under Stalin and tens of millions in China under Mao.” – Sowell


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-21 06:25:00 UTC

  • SHARING THE JOY – PROGRESS REPORT Oversing works. We are starting to use it to m

    SHARING THE JOY – PROGRESS REPORT

    Oversing works.

    We are starting to use it to manage our business. Using Oversing to build Oversing so to speak.

    Now, there is still a lot of work to be done.

    Imagine: Enterprise project accounting with powerful workflow manager, your favorite CRM, every project management tool you can find, and Facebook put in a cauldron and stewed together. It’s not a trivial application. But it’s creative. And with our sort of ‘workspace’ we can build all sorts of user interfaces for all sorts of management needs.

    It’s so much better than I had envisioned.

    VIEWS: FROM ACTIVITY TO PLAN

    1) Your Activity Stream (like FB news stream for your business – and in project work this really does matter)

    2) Your Alerts (messages from the workflow engine that let you know you have something to approve or other, and messages from other users – and like fB you reply or collaborate in context of a profile.)

    3) A List (table) of your tasks so that you can sort them.

    4) A Tree view (Ribbons, or narrow index cards?) so that you can organize your work and your projects.

    5) An Agile Board view of your work or project.

    6) A Gantt Chart of your project (if you need such a thing – some of us do).

    You can manage one project at a time or a hundred. No difference.

    Each view can also be filtered by the sequence

    1) Idea – Things you haven’t committed to. But want to remember.

    2) Backlog – Things that you commit to but will work on in priority order.

    3) Board – things you are currently working on, and trying to finish.

    4) Archive – things that you’ve finished.

    The workflow engine can be customized for whatever is on the Board. So the moment you start work on something, your can create your own ‘Agile Board’ or Kanban Board, and work an issue at a time.

    We started with these Categories of projects:

    1) Sales and CRM (Goals, Leads, and Opportunities)

    2) Recruiting (goals, openings and candidates)

    3) Revenue Forecasting (Time Periods and Revenue Commits)

    4) Delivery of Project Work including

    …..i) WBS Projects (Phases and time)

    …..ii) Agile and Kanban Projects (iterations and queues)

    …..iii) Jobs and Work Orders (Production work)

    …..iv) Tickets and Queues (support requests)

    5) Management Initiatives and Career Development

    6) Accounting Periods. (Yes we manage accounting periods like projects – cause they are. )

    So you either load a template for a project for any given business problem, or you sort of compose a project with the different ‘panels’ you need, and save that workspace.

    Oversing sort of LOOKS like all these different applications that are slightly similar, but underneath the hood it’s all tasks, relations, and a project journal and ledger, and a workspace for composing the kind of UI needed to solve each business problem.

    Now, our killer feature is really resource allocation, and forward management of your business. But that doesn’t mean the rest of the app isn’t just crazy fun to work with. 🙂

    Cheers.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-20 15:15:00 UTC