Curt Doolittle shared a photo.
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-18 07:14:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a photo.
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-18 07:14:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a photo.
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-18 07:12:00 UTC
DEMOCRACY, KANT, ROUSSEAU, MARX, ERRORS AND FAMILY
My ambition, like many that of many others, is to find a resolution to the problem of political conflict between and within heterogeneous groups – which seems to be a barrier to our happiness and prosperity.
Since Postmodern thought has become the religion of the state, it’s useful if we study influential works of Rousseau, Kant and Marx.
MARX
Interestingly enough, we find that only Marx dealt with material reality, even if an impossible economy, while Rousseau an impossible morality, and Kant an impossible philosophy.
Marx is most interesting. His logical failures were at least understandable:
(a) the labor theory of value was an error, because it was an impossibility. Value is subjective, and objectively only known at the point of exchange, and must be so. (Locke making the same mistake);
(b) Consequently he failed to understand the problem of prices and incentives in organizing a division of labor. (He was not alone.) And;
(c) He conflated the problem of alienation from work, with the problem of alienation from membership in a group, drawing the emotions from the second to justify the first.
(d) He didn’t grasp that mass production is only valuable in the service of consumer wants (which is where capitalism often fails to satisfy our reason: it satisfies consumer wants, not what is ‘good or necessary’ in the abstract sense.)
These failures were catastrophic, and he built his entire edifice on misplaced emotions, misplaced causes, and impossible means and ends.
Our feelings are reactions to changes in state both of present and future. And the human mind excels at conflation, and is weak at causal discrimination. It is easy for people to make these mistakes, and Marx was not immune to them. While it is true that working on an expensive pair of shoes if you can’t own one can be alienating, the fact that one can eventually afford something other than them is something else entirely. If one can drive a used ford mustang by working on a luxury BMW, when the difference is merely signaling, it seems difficult to say that one has moral right to status signals.
The problem with our feelings is that we don’t live in tribes. Our feelings originated when we could have some idea of our place in the family and the world. We still seek it. All of us. The problem is the only information system we operate by outside of the family is prices and it’s exasperating: prices, unlike family, don’t care about us. So capitalism is alienating, yes. But Marx misplaced the source of alienation. Because it’s not possible to obtain the same feeling of cause and effect in a vast division of knowledge and labor, that it is as a craftsman. Thats’ why so many people practice hobby crafts.
ROUSSEAU
Rousseau actually doesn’t say anything more meaning than “I was cast out by my family and I want a means of survival as an outcast, so that I can experience eternal childhood.” He tries to recreate the obligations of the family for all of society. Which is what we all want – instinctually. The problem is people don’t act that way if they aren’t homogenous in family structure, and mythos. So, under heterogeneity there can be no ‘general will’, as we see from current political polarity.
KANT
Kant tries desperately, to recreate the protestant church by rational rather than mystical means. Not only does he fail, but he tells us that we can never understand reality – the most anti-scientific ideology in history, second only in harm to Zoroaster and Abraham.
PERSON, FAMILY, TRIBE, and PRODUCTION
The data appears to universally demonstrate that extended families who eschew marriage of relations develop both high trust and redistributive morality. It appears that people who do not do this, do not, and experience high corruption.
As diversity of any kind increases (particularly of family structure) morality changes with it, and disparate family models compete with different moral codes. Signaling is used by groups to demonstrate moral affiliation, and trust declines. (just the data. That’s how it is.)
This explains why northern european countries are redistributive: they are highly related, homogenous extended families, with small political structures. So they do not feel ‘alienated’ from their labor under capitalism. Whereas transitional families do. ie: Marx got it wrong. Capitalism isn’t alienating if you’re a tribe. It is if you’re alone.
Despite the fact that the vast number of social cognitive biases we evolved with lie to us about the similarity of our thoughts, and the Dunning Krueger effect prevents us from discovering it. We always believe we are ‘the average person’ or ‘in the top 20%’. But neither is true. And all but a few are competent to make that assessment, and those that are, underrate their competence.
Democracy is a familial process – for use with Kin. It can be used to choose which of the priorities is highest among people with similar interests. But it cannot choose between competing interests without conquest of one group by another. That is purely logical. And that is what the evidence has shown us.
As such alienation CAN ONLY be a product of inclusion or exclusion from the commons of production that we call a family. Where a family has some maximum size before interests are no longer common. A social contract always exists. It is called ‘norms’: manners, ethics and morals. And they vary by family structure. And family structure is determined by the means of production, whether that be informational, industrial, agrarian, or hunter gatherer.
As such I am fairly sure that diversity and scale are contrary to both any social contract, and any desire to prevent alienation. And Kant’s contribution is just another iteration of mysticism.
Smith and Hume were right. And the conservatives were right: democracy across any variation in interests, is just the slow road to dictatorship.
Cheers.
(eh… not a fan of comparative religion. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-18 07:11:00 UTC
FALSE CONSENSUS BIASES
(a gem)
Despite the fact that the vast number of social cognitive biases we evolved with lie to us about the similarity of our thoughts, the Dunning Krueger effect prevents us from discovering it. We are happily ignorant of our differences and our instincts try to make sure we stay that way.
(This cognitive problem is more problematic for females than for males, since they have a higher instinctual need for membership, and are more likely to obtain information from solving for consensus. Males on the other hand are always trying to stick out using facts – and we desperately seek facts, especially facts that are counter to the consensus, so that we can stick out. So we work by opposite instincts.)
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-18 06:29:00 UTC
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4dc7ab46-0424-11e3-a8d6-00144feab7de.html#axzz2cEeql9o7Market Forces
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-17 10:11:00 UTC
LIMITED NUMBER OF WOMEN CEOS AND BOARD MEMBERS
I think we know the answer and have known the answer for years:
1) the distribution of IQ at 130 or higher, which is common threshold in CEO’s and board members, and necessary for marginally competitive advantage means that executive participation by women will max at around 30%. Nature does not produce an equivalent number of marginally different women.
2) board membership is not fun. It is largely hard work. The material is quantitative. And decisions are legal, funancial, political, factional and risky. Appeals to empathy or sympathy are considered rightly to be attemts at deception. Board members usually have little information and what they do have they must treat skepyically. Consensus can be difficult and intractable.
3) Women will not as willingly play the cost of maintaining unpleasant, argumentative factional loyalty as often or as well as men, so they are percieved as less trustworthy partners on a team. Those that do are paired with men they agree with. And that combination seems to be powerful.
4) more men prefer to specialize in abstract rules, and devote their time to one specialization. So more men tend to master what organizations value.
Free from nevessary domestic toil, women dominate the middle of the economy and men the margins, and assortive mating reinforces that distribution. There is no chance it will change and if it did, those companies operation by existing means would rapidly dominate those with less meritocratic orders.
We are only equal under the law in the resolution of disputes over property and even then not universally so – as males will attest in family court.
But we are not equal in ability. Equal in value to others. Equal in status ( mating potential). Nor equal in value to mankind.
Equality is achieveable in kinship matters, but not commercial relations. And commerce under individualism is not kinship outside of a homogenous city state.
Just how it is and must be.
We can bend natures laws but we cannot ignore them.
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-17 04:22:00 UTC
http://www.policestateusa.com/archives/144WELCOME TO THE POLICE STATE 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-17 02:32:00 UTC
THE CHOICE OF ALIENATION
Alienated: ostracized, outcast, irrelevant, indifferent, without value to the group, independent, alone.
Why have we evolved this feeling?
Because it is an instinctual warning that our status is low. Not only are we not desirable mating material. But we do not provide the other members of the group with value. They see no promise that we will provide value. And we see no promise of providing value. So our wishes can be comfortably discounted in any group decision. We need not consume group effort and resources. And we can be left behind in duress (die or be fired). We evolved that feeling so that we would be desperately incentivized to find a way to provide value. In history it was a death sentence. Today it is a subject of cognitive therapy.
What causes this feeling in history?
The organization of humans engaged production has been declining from the tribe (Hunter gatherer), to extended family (agrarian settlement), to nuclear family (prohibition on inbreeding), to the Isolated family(industrialism) to the individual (information age and feminism), as the division of labor and knowledge increases due the increase of people in the work-force.
We evolved to use visible signals, emotional expressions, and personal knowledge of one another, living in bands and tribes, and we now communicate by pricing signals and a hierarchy of manners, ethics and morals, whose only visible feedback is negative, and our only success metric consumption and survival. We are not administered by the knowledge of others, but by antique religious norms, contemporary-religious norms (Postmodernism), an inconceivable network of laws, and a system of credit information which cares nothing about the vicissitudes of our lives. We live in physically isolated spaces, free from the compromise with others, free to imaging our own status within our family, tribe and nation, as whatever we dream it to be. We choose to live alone. We choose our spatial freedom. We choose our freedom to consume. To spend our efforts on the self, without compromise to the family, extended family, clan, tribe and nation. We choose it on purpose. Willingly. And almost universally, all people, who have the opportunity to choose spatial freedom, person consumption, and freedom from compromise do so whenever possible. We are confronted not with inequality, but with the pervasive evidence that we are all equal in our near-irrelevance to one another outside of the mother-child bond. The further west we move the less tangible is the tradition of kinship, so even genes do not guarantee us membership.
But given the choice we almost always choose consumption. Because we are too selfish to forgo the opportunity for stimulation, experience, consumption and status to compromise with others and reduce both the opportunity to gain stimulation, as well as the chance that the illusion of our status, be erased by constant interaction with others who would dispel it.
Alienation is the price we pay for selfishness. And we pay it willingly.
We complain about the prevalence of a McDonalds hamburger, which has more calories than most people could consume in a week, and more chemicals that they could absorb in a lifetime. We complain about the cost of everything, even though our purchasing power is unrivaled.
We criticize the cost of living near good schools. We envy those with clothes, goods, cars and homes as conspicuous consumers when the only difference between their goods and ours is the status signal that accompanies it, and the conflict this causes between the illusion of our mating status and our observable reality.
Status in american life requires little more than a college education, a two income family, that provides someone else what they want, so that we can get what we want. But most other people want something the provision of which is mundane, uninteresting, boring, repetitious – because that is what makes something inexpensive.
We complain about military spending, while it is paid for almost entirely by exporting debt, so the dollars can be used in the market for petroleum, and then we inflate the debt away, conveniently taxing the developed world for our military, while providing us extraordinary trading rights, and the stabilization of prices of commodities, without which americans would lose between a quarter and a third of their standard of living.
Will women choose to restore the nuclear family and abandon the workplace? Will people forgo selling their labor at ‘jobs’ and return to direct participation in production and commerce, and the risk that comes with doing so? Will they abandon commerce altogether and resort to sustenance farming? It does not appear so.
Will the american society become as redistributionist as the smaller nations try to? No. We are no longer kin, or near kin. and People sacrifice only for kin. Kinship can be determined by values and culture alone, not genetic relation. But we are not homogenous enough. WHy? Because human moral codes are determined by family structures, family structures by the allocation of property, and the level of technology involved in production. People will not fund alternative moral codes. Redistribution is for the small and homogenous, where homogenous means homogenous family structure, and homogenous morality, homogenous values, and marginally homogenous kinship. Trust is necessary to avoid the economic friction of corruption and a diversity of manners, ethics, morals, values and family structure leads to a competition for status signals, a competition for power, divisiveness, and a decline in trust necessary for the prevention of corruption and the low friction of trade.
We still worship Marx’s moral vision, which all of us would embrace if it was possible, even though we know that without prices and incentives to inform us what to do, we would be at the merciless subjection of those who would command us into equality. But where our only possible equality is in poverty.
Everyone wants the same thing: the illusion that is Denmark. The problem is, all the adults can’t figure out any other way to get there. The only way we know of is ‘small’.
Equality of care for one another amidst the inequality of value to one another is only achievable with kin.
And that’s where we got the feeling from.
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-16 09:43:00 UTC
THE WEST VS THE EAST VS THE ARAB MODEL
Citizens as individual actors with the state as neutral arbiter vs citizens as troublesome dependents to be managed by the paternal head of family.
“These societies possess the outward trappings of a modern state but are founded on informal patronage networks, especially those of kinship, and traditional ideals of patriarchal family authority. In nations pervaded by clannism, government is coopted for purely factional purposes and the state, conceived on the model of the patriarchal family, treats citizens not as autonomous actors but rather as troublesome dependents to be managed.” – the Arab Development Report.
We are different. Our ancestry is that of egalitarian warriors not extended familial hierarchy.
We were different from the start.
And that difference: the need to debate between peers is the origin of reason, science, and all else that we have used to dig humanity out of ignorance and poverty.
Kicking and screaming, all the while.
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-16 04:03:00 UTC
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00740KVN0/ref=tsm_1_fb_lkCONQUEST BY THE STATE, TOM WOODS’ NULLIFICATION, MARK LEVIN’S RESTORATION, SECESSION, OR COMMON VIOLENCE.
Choose one or have it chosen for you.
While nullification is the cheapest solution and violence the most expensive, I’m not personally partial to non violence so Nullification, Restoration, Secession, or violent Revolution are all acceptable alternatives to conquest, culture-cide, and genocide. ;).
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00740KVN0
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1451606273/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/190-1332324-1194528?keywords=liberty%20amendments&qid=1376569733&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-16 03:45:00 UTC