Moreover, the this is why libertarians were wrong in privatization. The difference between a commons and private goods, is that owners can consume private goods, and others cannot, whereas no-one can consume commons whether one was a contributor or not. Instead the market (locality) itself benefits from the *externalities* produced by the construction of the commons. So private property prohibits others from consumption, and commons prevent all from consumption. And whereas competition in the market creates incentives to produce private goods, competition in the construction of commons produces malincentives. Why? Because of loss aversion. Given that commons product benefits only be externality, they must be free of privatization in order to provide incentive to produce them. The libertarian solution was to make commons either impossible to produce due to malincentives, or to create vehicles for extraction by externality without contributing to production. pathways through two-dimensional space are particularly problematic since the only way to create private property is with a militia or military funded by the commons.
Source: Original Site Post
-
The Criminality of Rothbardian Ethics
The answer instead is to increase incentives for the private production of commons as a status signal and personal monument that outlast’s one’s lifetime, and can be inherited by one’s offspring. And to increase the scale of commons that can be produced by the public (market) production of commons that are free from privatization. -
The Fallacy of Libertarian ‘Principles’.
( recorded here ) This is such a great question. And I can answer it from several or all points of view.
- First: any argument to principle is not argument to causality and can be generally interpreted as an attempt at deceit by the use of half truths in order to cause the individual to rely on intuition and therefore be the victim of suggestion.
- Second: the full sentence would be that man acts in his rational self interest at all times given his available information and his available means of understanding.
- Third: mises epistemology is a derivation of the kantian fallacy. Because while we can use free association to construct hypotheses, in the form of deduction, induction, and abduction (guessing), we cannot claim these to be truth propositions like we can in geometry, ( nor can we in geometry at scale either) because the information in reality is more causally dense than the ideal world of perfect imaginary mathematical categories. So for truth propositions we must ensure to perform due diligence that our discovery of a free association remains a truth candidate.
This is what the scientific method accomplished: due diligence against falsehood. That is all. And our success arises from eliminating many errors so that our free associations are increasingly superior.
What does this mean? It means that economic observations remain empirical – beyond direct perception. But that we must be able to explain any empirical observation as a sequence of subjectively testable voluntary operations in order for it to be a truth candidate. So Mises had it backward. All sciences require empirical observation to capture imperceptible phenomenon, but all truth claims must be warranted against error bias wishful thinking, suggestion and error, by acts of due diligence. The test of existential possibility and objective morality is performed praxeologically: by subjectively testing the sequence of operations necessary to produce the empirically observed phenomenon. I could go on at length here but this should be enough. IN CLOSING: It is obvious to me that just as anglos used martial empiricism and contractualism in their enlightenment. And just as Germans used hierarchical duty and rationalism as a restatement of Germanic Christianity. The Jews used the authoritarianism of Jewish law as a reformation of their religion. We can see mises like Freud, Marx, and Boaz as attempting to create an authoritarian pseudoscience using half truth and suggestion because Jewish law and religion is constructed by this method. My rather uncomfortable observation is that this technique like Jewish ghetto financing, is a pattern under which suggestion can be use to use temporal language to create seductive moral hazards from which they and profit. That mises had like Rothbard adopted this strategy metaphysically and involuntarily is obvious. Both men, like Marx, went to their graves knowing they were wrong but not knowing yet what assumptions in their cultural heritage caused them to err.
-
The Fallacy of Libertarian ‘Principles’.
( recorded here ) This is such a great question. And I can answer it from several or all points of view.
- First: any argument to principle is not argument to causality and can be generally interpreted as an attempt at deceit by the use of half truths in order to cause the individual to rely on intuition and therefore be the victim of suggestion.
- Second: the full sentence would be that man acts in his rational self interest at all times given his available information and his available means of understanding.
- Third: mises epistemology is a derivation of the kantian fallacy. Because while we can use free association to construct hypotheses, in the form of deduction, induction, and abduction (guessing), we cannot claim these to be truth propositions like we can in geometry, ( nor can we in geometry at scale either) because the information in reality is more causally dense than the ideal world of perfect imaginary mathematical categories. So for truth propositions we must ensure to perform due diligence that our discovery of a free association remains a truth candidate.
This is what the scientific method accomplished: due diligence against falsehood. That is all. And our success arises from eliminating many errors so that our free associations are increasingly superior.
What does this mean? It means that economic observations remain empirical – beyond direct perception. But that we must be able to explain any empirical observation as a sequence of subjectively testable voluntary operations in order for it to be a truth candidate. So Mises had it backward. All sciences require empirical observation to capture imperceptible phenomenon, but all truth claims must be warranted against error bias wishful thinking, suggestion and error, by acts of due diligence. The test of existential possibility and objective morality is performed praxeologically: by subjectively testing the sequence of operations necessary to produce the empirically observed phenomenon. I could go on at length here but this should be enough. IN CLOSING: It is obvious to me that just as anglos used martial empiricism and contractualism in their enlightenment. And just as Germans used hierarchical duty and rationalism as a restatement of Germanic Christianity. The Jews used the authoritarianism of Jewish law as a reformation of their religion. We can see mises like Freud, Marx, and Boaz as attempting to create an authoritarian pseudoscience using half truth and suggestion because Jewish law and religion is constructed by this method. My rather uncomfortable observation is that this technique like Jewish ghetto financing, is a pattern under which suggestion can be use to use temporal language to create seductive moral hazards from which they and profit. That mises had like Rothbard adopted this strategy metaphysically and involuntarily is obvious. Both men, like Marx, went to their graves knowing they were wrong but not knowing yet what assumptions in their cultural heritage caused them to err.
-
Man Is Merely Rational
Man is rational. He engages in predation when it suits him, parasitism when it is possible, cooperation when it is preferable, and flight when it is necessary. Thankfully, through organizing our efforts into myth, ritual, habit, norm, and law, we can raise the cost of predation and parasitism high enough so that man chooses cooperation or flight more often than parasitism or predation. Our deprivation of his opportunity for parasitism and predation do not change the nature of man – because man is rational. We simply eliminate those less able to cooperate and produce, and provide disincentives to those that remain, thereby creating an imbalance of incentives and proclivity for cooperation and production.
-
Man Is Merely Rational
Man is rational. He engages in predation when it suits him, parasitism when it is possible, cooperation when it is preferable, and flight when it is necessary. Thankfully, through organizing our efforts into myth, ritual, habit, norm, and law, we can raise the cost of predation and parasitism high enough so that man chooses cooperation or flight more often than parasitism or predation. Our deprivation of his opportunity for parasitism and predation do not change the nature of man – because man is rational. We simply eliminate those less able to cooperate and produce, and provide disincentives to those that remain, thereby creating an imbalance of incentives and proclivity for cooperation and production.
-
Domestication by Family Unit
—“It was precisely this domestication of men and women into family units that propelled Europeans forward. That the Germans were more monogamously disciplined than the Celts is why they went on to be the source of Northern European success, more so than the Irish. The eugenic footprint can be seen even to this day.”— Josh Jeppson
-
Domestication by Family Unit
—“It was precisely this domestication of men and women into family units that propelled Europeans forward. That the Germans were more monogamously disciplined than the Celts is why they went on to be the source of Northern European success, more so than the Irish. The eugenic footprint can be seen even to this day.”— Josh Jeppson
-
Moscow’s Indirect Education Of Europeans
Moscow’s conquest of south-eastern ukraine broke not only the postwar consensus on borders, but the peace of Westphalia that made states accountable for the factions inside their borders. To some degree this may help Europeans, and westerners, understand that their definition of war includes the assumption that wars are conducted by states against states rather than by factions within states against states or factions within other states – and that like the high trust society they live in, and the rule of law they live under, or the democracy that they practice, is just another European idiosyncrasy – an artifact of history that like trust, law, democracy, can readily convert to human norms of low trust, corruption, and totalitariansm.
-
Moscow’s Indirect Education Of Europeans
Moscow’s conquest of south-eastern ukraine broke not only the postwar consensus on borders, but the peace of Westphalia that made states accountable for the factions inside their borders. To some degree this may help Europeans, and westerners, understand that their definition of war includes the assumption that wars are conducted by states against states rather than by factions within states against states or factions within other states – and that like the high trust society they live in, and the rule of law they live under, or the democracy that they practice, is just another European idiosyncrasy – an artifact of history that like trust, law, democracy, can readily convert to human norms of low trust, corruption, and totalitariansm.
-
The Church Failed To Reform And The Sciences Didn’t Have Time To Complete Their Evolutionary Program
I mean, another way to look at the 20th century is that in response to Darwin, Maxwell, Spencer, (a) the church failed to reform in response by stating that god and natural and physical laws were the same expression of his divinity, and (b) our intellectual class failed to synthesize operationalism as a means of reforming scientific thought-at its new-grand-scale, and (c) the Jewish pseudoscientists (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor) filled a void that both state, academy, and finance could use to profit from the new wave of democratic voters (customers), students (customers), and consumers (customers) who they could not force to spend down their accumulated cultural and institutional capital.
We can easily argue that this is the same strategy the ancient Jews took in response to the imposition of (scientific Aryan-universalist) roman law on top of their (mystical authoritarian separatist) Jewish law. I mean, it worked against classical civilization, why wouldn’t it work against restored classical civilization of the enlightenment? Intellectuals provide a product for a market. I am just concerned that we do not let another era of fraudulent defective products like ancient Jewish mysticism and modern Jewish pseudoscience into a civilization where second tier intellectuals, women, and the underclass are all too willing to embrace utter falsehoods at the expense of their civilization and it’s progenitors – and in the case of western civilization, all of human kind that benefits from western creativity. So what we see, is that between the failure of democracy, the progressive failure of Keynesian economics, the failure of Freudian psychology, of Boazian anthropology, of Marxist economics and sociology, and even Cantorian infinity to survive scrutiny by late 20’th and early 21st century science, that we have at least a temporary opportunity to overthrow the Second Great Deceit’s attack on western truth, science, and eugenics. But we have a short time before the second great deceit and it’s customers in women and the underclasses, possess such numbers that we can be forced into another dark age. And that the promise of a eugenic north America, like a eugenic Europe, insulated from the steppe, desert, and jungle, can continue to provide an engine of innovation for mankind. For the simple reason that we pay the high cost of truthfulness: That discipline of eliminating error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit, that we call ‘science’. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine We must achieve by force what they have achieved in both the ancient and modern world by deceits.