I — OBJECTIVE OF DIFFERENT SCHOOLS — The different economic schools pursue different ends: a) Austrian: Social Science : reduction of frictions. Emphasis on institutions of cooperation. (“Paleo-Libertarianism / Natural Law”) b) Freshwater: Rule of Law: Non-interference with planning, but insurance against informational asymmetries, at the expense of consumption. Emphasis on ‘balance’. (“Classical Liberalism / Constitutionalism”) c) Saltwater: Discretionary Rule – favoring consumption at the expense of savings, capital, and planning. Emphasis on equality and spending. (“social democracy / leftism”) II — TIME PREFERENCE OF DIFFERENT SCHOOLS —- We can judge the time preference by the levers that each school advocates or shuns, from shortest to longest. – Direct Redistribution ( not practiced ) “New” but Saltwater will jump on it. – Fiscal Policy – Saltwater – Social Policy – Saltwater – Monetary Policy – Freshwater – Tax and Trade policy – Freshwater – Infrastructure Policy – Freshwater – Education Policy (human capital) Immigration Policy (Austrian) – Institutional Policy (Austrian)
Source: Original Site Post
-
Is Propertarianism Both Chicago and Austrian? Well…
Sep 04, 2016 11:10am —“Curt: Can we then say that your philosophy is both Chicago and Austrian?”—GREAT QUESTION I have no problem with discretion in fiscal policy(saltwater), rule of law in monetary, infrastructure, and trade policy(Chicago freshwater), and social science in institutional and human capital policy(Austrian). It’s when economists try to conflate any of those TOOLS by misapplying them outside of the knowledge required to truthfully appeal to the public for moral license to act upon opportunities each tool provides that I have a problem. In other words, if it’s true and voluntary that’s fine. If it’s not true and voluntary then it isn’t. My objective is truth in the pursuit of voluntary cooperation through exchanges. And to overthrow the pseudoscientific era of aggregations for the purpose of conducting fraud. Thanks
-
Is Propertarianism Both Chicago and Austrian? Well…
Sep 04, 2016 11:10am —“Curt: Can we then say that your philosophy is both Chicago and Austrian?”—GREAT QUESTION I have no problem with discretion in fiscal policy(saltwater), rule of law in monetary, infrastructure, and trade policy(Chicago freshwater), and social science in institutional and human capital policy(Austrian). It’s when economists try to conflate any of those TOOLS by misapplying them outside of the knowledge required to truthfully appeal to the public for moral license to act upon opportunities each tool provides that I have a problem. In other words, if it’s true and voluntary that’s fine. If it’s not true and voluntary then it isn’t. My objective is truth in the pursuit of voluntary cooperation through exchanges. And to overthrow the pseudoscientific era of aggregations for the purpose of conducting fraud. Thanks
-
Markets In Everything – And Economists Circumventing them.
MARKETS IN EVERYTHING? THE WESTERN MODEL OF SOVEREIGNTY A market for reproduction (family). A market for production (goods and services), a market for commons (government), a market for dispute resolution (common law), and a market for polities (voluntary association and disassociation). If you advocate for majority democracy by assent instead of market for commons under juridical defense, then you are just a fool and a thief like any other. It surprises me that you will hear economists justly criticize the misapplication of the economics of the family and small business to the international business, and government. Yet in the next breath advocate majoritarian democracy and the use of aggregates to conduct involuntary exchanges, rather than to construct a market for the voluntary exchange of commons uder juridical dissent in the next. Economists regularly justify their preconceptions and utilitarian biases by applying the decision-making of the tribe to that of the nation and empire. If there were voluntary construction of market commons rather than thefts by aggregation, think of (a) what economists would research instead of what they research today, and (b) what we would know about economics as a consequence rather than what we know today, and (c) how empowered each of us would be vs today, and (d) how we could solve problems of conflict between groups that we cannot solve today. Monopoly Majoritarian Representative Commons Production (Democratic government) is the origin of political conflict – NOT the solution to it. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute
-
Markets In Everything – And Economists Circumventing them.
MARKETS IN EVERYTHING? THE WESTERN MODEL OF SOVEREIGNTY A market for reproduction (family). A market for production (goods and services), a market for commons (government), a market for dispute resolution (common law), and a market for polities (voluntary association and disassociation). If you advocate for majority democracy by assent instead of market for commons under juridical defense, then you are just a fool and a thief like any other. It surprises me that you will hear economists justly criticize the misapplication of the economics of the family and small business to the international business, and government. Yet in the next breath advocate majoritarian democracy and the use of aggregates to conduct involuntary exchanges, rather than to construct a market for the voluntary exchange of commons uder juridical dissent in the next. Economists regularly justify their preconceptions and utilitarian biases by applying the decision-making of the tribe to that of the nation and empire. If there were voluntary construction of market commons rather than thefts by aggregation, think of (a) what economists would research instead of what they research today, and (b) what we would know about economics as a consequence rather than what we know today, and (c) how empowered each of us would be vs today, and (d) how we could solve problems of conflict between groups that we cannot solve today. Monopoly Majoritarian Representative Commons Production (Democratic government) is the origin of political conflict – NOT the solution to it. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute
-
Notes On Various Topics
Sep 04, 2016 12:26pm NOTES FOR YOUR USE: PROPERTY IN TOTO – The academy uses ‘reported’ vs ‘stated’ preference. We correctly use ‘demonstrated’ preference. – Why do you have the right to depreciate the normative values others have invested in as a flag? I mean, if I bore a cost to create a norm, and there is nothing false in the norm, then why is it you can cause damage to the norm? This is how people treat symbols. So if free speech is lmited to truthful speech, then these are not questions any longer. – Natural Property = that which we expend time, effor,t resources, risk, to obtain without imposing costs upon that which otheres have expended time, effort, resources, risk, to obtain – Starting with the choice of predation, parasitism, boycott, cooperation, or buying options on future cooperation. – The strong are always paying the cost of non-parasitism, non-predation upon you. THe only reason to refrain from non-parasitism and non-predation is if you boycott, cooperate, or buy options on the future of cooperation. The question is, then, what’s the limit of things you agree not to engage in non-parasitism and non-predation against? Well, it depends upon the terms of your existing social order. If you have a low trust order with no commons, or a high trust order with lots of commons, you defend that what you’ve invested in. If you’ve invested in high trust high commons society, then you defend those things that comprise it. If you don’t then you don’t defend, and you act parasiticall against them. This is what high trust people object to: parasitism upon their investment in the high trust commons. And high trust peoples are stronger for the simple reason that they are wealthier and can produce more competitive commons – not the least of which is warfare. This is why polities with different (lower and higher) property definitions are not compatible. TESTIMONIAL TRUTH The purpose of testimonial Truth: To state how to construct contract, legislation, and law, and how to promote contract, legislation, and law, such that it is almost impossible to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, propaganda, and deceit. Once we have testimonial truth, we can treat information – like air, land, and water – as a commons. We can grant people universal standing in matters of the commons. And preserve universal applicability to all people. This creates a market with both opportunity to issue ideas, and juridical defense against fraudulent and harmful ideas. (scientists do this already really). We could not limit speech to truthful speech without a legally testable criteria. Testimonialism provides lawyers, prosecutors, juries and judges with criteria that can be stated in law and adjudicated like many other laws. Normative adoption of testimonialism would produce giant gains equal to *science over mysticism*. We are feeling the effects of the second great deception. The first was monotheistic utopian mysticism, and the second has been pseudoscientific utopianism. So it’s not just that I want to eliminate error. It’s that I want to eliminate deception in all its unconsious, justifiationary, wishful, and intentional forms. THat requires we elminate error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, propagandizing and deceit. MORALISMS(APPROVAL) VS EMPIRICISM (TRUTH) Separating approval and disapproval, truth and falsehood, so that we can conduct trades. Approval is on ly necessary in small groups. Everything else requries just truth and exchange. The reason we must engage in approval and disapproval, is only when we are determining the use of common property. If we are discussing private property then approval is irrelevant. If we are trying to determine the use of common property at scale, we can only do that through truth and trade and full accounting, not approval or disapproval. BLOCK’S IMMORALITY Even if we say that someone has the right to use drugs, does that mean you have the right to SELL them drugs? So if you grow your own pot, smoke it at home, and don’t operate machinery or impose sound or light or behavioral costs on your neighbors, then that’s fine. I am not sure how one could make the argument that he has the right to sell goods that will lead to harm regardless of the individual’s volition. This same strategy applies to copyrights and the creative commons licenses. I can understand prohibiting profiting from the creative works of others, but I can’t understand how you can prohibit someone from copying something for personal use. Conversely, I don’t see how you can claim you have a right to profit from creations of ideas – unless the polity has provided off book compensation to if you’re conducting basic research. INCREMENTAL SUPPRESSION The use of the natural, common, judge-discovered law, markets for reproduction(marriage), markets for goods and services, markets for commons, allows for the most rapid identification of new forms of parasitism and predation, and their immediate prohibition with the first case adjudicated. This allows societies to adapt positively (markets) and negatively (courts) faster than any OTHER POSSIBLE method of cooperation. Furthermore, since there are not AGGREGATES involved in the prodcess of case by case adjudication, and no CONSENT necessary for the production of reproduction, consumption, and commons, then public discourse an remain EMPIRICAL rather than AGGREGATE (moral, religious, allegorical). So this is the reason that the west developed FASTER in the ancient and modern worlds, than the rest of the world. This is the secret of the west. Sovereignty, Truth, Jury, Judge, natural, jduge discovered, common law, and as a consequence, the only possible means of cooperation under sovereignty, truth, jury, judge, natural, judge-discovered common law, is markets for reproduction (marriage), markets for production, markets for commons, market for dispute resolution, and the militia that fights together. Democracy then is antithetical since by eliminating the multi-house-government, and engaging in reproductoin, we have destroyed secred of the western excelllence. Thanks
-
Notes On Various Topics
Sep 04, 2016 12:26pm NOTES FOR YOUR USE: PROPERTY IN TOTO – The academy uses ‘reported’ vs ‘stated’ preference. We correctly use ‘demonstrated’ preference. – Why do you have the right to depreciate the normative values others have invested in as a flag? I mean, if I bore a cost to create a norm, and there is nothing false in the norm, then why is it you can cause damage to the norm? This is how people treat symbols. So if free speech is lmited to truthful speech, then these are not questions any longer. – Natural Property = that which we expend time, effor,t resources, risk, to obtain without imposing costs upon that which otheres have expended time, effort, resources, risk, to obtain – Starting with the choice of predation, parasitism, boycott, cooperation, or buying options on future cooperation. – The strong are always paying the cost of non-parasitism, non-predation upon you. THe only reason to refrain from non-parasitism and non-predation is if you boycott, cooperate, or buy options on the future of cooperation. The question is, then, what’s the limit of things you agree not to engage in non-parasitism and non-predation against? Well, it depends upon the terms of your existing social order. If you have a low trust order with no commons, or a high trust order with lots of commons, you defend that what you’ve invested in. If you’ve invested in high trust high commons society, then you defend those things that comprise it. If you don’t then you don’t defend, and you act parasiticall against them. This is what high trust people object to: parasitism upon their investment in the high trust commons. And high trust peoples are stronger for the simple reason that they are wealthier and can produce more competitive commons – not the least of which is warfare. This is why polities with different (lower and higher) property definitions are not compatible. TESTIMONIAL TRUTH The purpose of testimonial Truth: To state how to construct contract, legislation, and law, and how to promote contract, legislation, and law, such that it is almost impossible to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, propaganda, and deceit. Once we have testimonial truth, we can treat information – like air, land, and water – as a commons. We can grant people universal standing in matters of the commons. And preserve universal applicability to all people. This creates a market with both opportunity to issue ideas, and juridical defense against fraudulent and harmful ideas. (scientists do this already really). We could not limit speech to truthful speech without a legally testable criteria. Testimonialism provides lawyers, prosecutors, juries and judges with criteria that can be stated in law and adjudicated like many other laws. Normative adoption of testimonialism would produce giant gains equal to *science over mysticism*. We are feeling the effects of the second great deception. The first was monotheistic utopian mysticism, and the second has been pseudoscientific utopianism. So it’s not just that I want to eliminate error. It’s that I want to eliminate deception in all its unconsious, justifiationary, wishful, and intentional forms. THat requires we elminate error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, propagandizing and deceit. MORALISMS(APPROVAL) VS EMPIRICISM (TRUTH) Separating approval and disapproval, truth and falsehood, so that we can conduct trades. Approval is on ly necessary in small groups. Everything else requries just truth and exchange. The reason we must engage in approval and disapproval, is only when we are determining the use of common property. If we are discussing private property then approval is irrelevant. If we are trying to determine the use of common property at scale, we can only do that through truth and trade and full accounting, not approval or disapproval. BLOCK’S IMMORALITY Even if we say that someone has the right to use drugs, does that mean you have the right to SELL them drugs? So if you grow your own pot, smoke it at home, and don’t operate machinery or impose sound or light or behavioral costs on your neighbors, then that’s fine. I am not sure how one could make the argument that he has the right to sell goods that will lead to harm regardless of the individual’s volition. This same strategy applies to copyrights and the creative commons licenses. I can understand prohibiting profiting from the creative works of others, but I can’t understand how you can prohibit someone from copying something for personal use. Conversely, I don’t see how you can claim you have a right to profit from creations of ideas – unless the polity has provided off book compensation to if you’re conducting basic research. INCREMENTAL SUPPRESSION The use of the natural, common, judge-discovered law, markets for reproduction(marriage), markets for goods and services, markets for commons, allows for the most rapid identification of new forms of parasitism and predation, and their immediate prohibition with the first case adjudicated. This allows societies to adapt positively (markets) and negatively (courts) faster than any OTHER POSSIBLE method of cooperation. Furthermore, since there are not AGGREGATES involved in the prodcess of case by case adjudication, and no CONSENT necessary for the production of reproduction, consumption, and commons, then public discourse an remain EMPIRICAL rather than AGGREGATE (moral, religious, allegorical). So this is the reason that the west developed FASTER in the ancient and modern worlds, than the rest of the world. This is the secret of the west. Sovereignty, Truth, Jury, Judge, natural, jduge discovered, common law, and as a consequence, the only possible means of cooperation under sovereignty, truth, jury, judge, natural, judge-discovered common law, is markets for reproduction (marriage), markets for production, markets for commons, market for dispute resolution, and the militia that fights together. Democracy then is antithetical since by eliminating the multi-house-government, and engaging in reproductoin, we have destroyed secred of the western excelllence. Thanks
-
Using Propertarian Reasoning (Methodology)
Sep 05, 2016 8:40am *** PROPERTARIAN REASONING: SPECTRA *** THREE POINTS MAKE A TESTABLE LINE THREE POINTS MAKE A TESTABLE TRIANGLE. THREE BEHAVIORS CREATE A TESTABLE ANALYSIS PROPERTARIAN REASONING: i) TAKE A CONCEPT, iii) “FIND THREE POINTS”. iii) Then FIND LIMITS. iv) Then FILL IN BETWEEN THEM. 1) The Unknown Known is as Problematic as the Unknown Unknown. – Known Known – Known Unknown – Unknown Unknown (things we can’t imagine) – Unkown Known. (Metaphysical assumptions) (Truth Table: Known vs Unknown) 2) Escaping Reality: Humanity Escapes the Present. – Westerner Civ – Heroism, Change, Future. (Aristocracy, Stoicism ) – Eastern Civ – Duty, Harmony, Past. ( Historicism and ritual ) – Magian Civ – Submission, Obeyance, Otherworldly(monotheism) – Denial Civ – Disconnection, Internalism, Excapism. (buddhism) (Truth Table: x=future vs past, y= fantasy vs escapism) 3) Causes of Metaphysical Assumptions (population density and climate hostility vs means of farm production) (Also value of individual human life in north/sparse vs south/dense) (from conversation with johannes meixner)
-
Using Propertarian Reasoning (Methodology)
Sep 05, 2016 8:40am *** PROPERTARIAN REASONING: SPECTRA *** THREE POINTS MAKE A TESTABLE LINE THREE POINTS MAKE A TESTABLE TRIANGLE. THREE BEHAVIORS CREATE A TESTABLE ANALYSIS PROPERTARIAN REASONING: i) TAKE A CONCEPT, iii) “FIND THREE POINTS”. iii) Then FIND LIMITS. iv) Then FILL IN BETWEEN THEM. 1) The Unknown Known is as Problematic as the Unknown Unknown. – Known Known – Known Unknown – Unknown Unknown (things we can’t imagine) – Unkown Known. (Metaphysical assumptions) (Truth Table: Known vs Unknown) 2) Escaping Reality: Humanity Escapes the Present. – Westerner Civ – Heroism, Change, Future. (Aristocracy, Stoicism ) – Eastern Civ – Duty, Harmony, Past. ( Historicism and ritual ) – Magian Civ – Submission, Obeyance, Otherworldly(monotheism) – Denial Civ – Disconnection, Internalism, Excapism. (buddhism) (Truth Table: x=future vs past, y= fantasy vs escapism) 3) Causes of Metaphysical Assumptions (population density and climate hostility vs means of farm production) (Also value of individual human life in north/sparse vs south/dense) (from conversation with johannes meixner)
-
Graphing Societies By Neuroticism and Individualism
Once we evolved sentience we required a fanciful positive incentive in order to deal with the fact that the universe is hostile to us, does not care about us, and will exterminate us in a heartbeat if we cease the struggle. And that our collective consciousnesses in each tribe constitute the god we speak to so that together we maintain the illusion that there is some ‘hope’ for us. So some cultures look to the past(china, japan), some to the future(the west), and some to fantasy (Islam, Christianity, but most certainly Hinduism), and some to the rejection of reality altogether (Buddhism). That describes all possible extremes of present-avoidance available to man. I did not say that spirituality provided what is good for man. In fact, other than Stoicism, I think all cults in history are as destructive in some sense while constructive in another (But why does Christianity create prosperity?) But they all provide the same escape from stresses in the present through membership in a virtual ‘pack’ or ‘herd’ that we can appeal to through direct subjective introspection of the patterns in that system of thought. All of which is largely an external consequence of sentience without the ‘internet’ equivalent of constant communication from mind to mind that seems to occur between pack and herd animals. Individual thought comes at a high price. As an aside: stress is created by what psychologists call ‘neuroticism’. So some personalities feel this need greatly, and some personalities feel it very little. If we combine this with intelligence, we see some people have a trust issue because of dunning Kruger effects (they cannot tell whether someone lies or not). So if we combine intelligence vs neuroticism we get a pretty obvious way of graphing different populations and societies.Westerners have higher creativity, and this seems to be correlated with the fact that we have higher neuroticism. It may be that either higher demand for individualism produces higher neuroticism or the inverse.