[H]ave we made a catastrophic mistake? Why have we forced all into individualism instead of separated the individualistic from the collectivist? Why must we have either a communist or capitalist order? Must we have a monopoly social democratic order? If we arose under a mix of martial, burgher, and church orders, then why was that model a failure? It wasn’t. It wasn’t a failure. The middle class allied with the lower class against the church and nobility after the thirty years war and while deserving enfranchisement, demonstrated hubris in the displacement of church and state. Forcing man into the absolute nuclear family, forcing man to move to capital. Forcing man into monopoly social orders. All of this force is not that of the past that made us successful. I understand the need for a market for commons. But what shall we do with the equivalent of the manor, market, military, and monastery when the great leap of the industrial revolution has passed?
Source: Original Site Post
-
Men Will Follow Rational Incentives – Women Not So.
(by Eli Harman) [V]oting either directs violence, or it is a substitute for violence. But the actual violence, supplied to carry the vote into effect, will be supplied by men. And the potential violence, which may prevent the vote being carried into effect, will be *not supplied* by men. Therefore, women are utterly superfluous to the whole process. Voting, for them, is just a source of windfall boons, of unearned rents, which they could in no other way obtain for themselves. When allowing women to participate in voting becomes too costly (and I would argue it already has, most just haven’t realized it yet) then it will no longer be in the interests of men to supply the violence to carry votes into effect, or refrain from supplying violence to prevent them being carried into effect. And we’ll start doing something else. If we don’t, women will consume and destroy everything. Their wishful thinking recognizes and imposes no limits upon itself.
-
Men Will Follow Rational Incentives – Women Not So.
(by Eli Harman) [V]oting either directs violence, or it is a substitute for violence. But the actual violence, supplied to carry the vote into effect, will be supplied by men. And the potential violence, which may prevent the vote being carried into effect, will be *not supplied* by men. Therefore, women are utterly superfluous to the whole process. Voting, for them, is just a source of windfall boons, of unearned rents, which they could in no other way obtain for themselves. When allowing women to participate in voting becomes too costly (and I would argue it already has, most just haven’t realized it yet) then it will no longer be in the interests of men to supply the violence to carry votes into effect, or refrain from supplying violence to prevent them being carried into effect. And we’ll start doing something else. If we don’t, women will consume and destroy everything. Their wishful thinking recognizes and imposes no limits upon itself.
-
We Must Rule
[W]e must rule. We must restore our tradition of rule. We must rule not because we are right, or best, but because everyone else is demonstrably worse. We must rule because without our rule, humanity has no example to draw from that is not the cancer of the Muslims or the Chinese or the chaos of the Africans. The world today is dependent almost entirely on western example in science, law, contract, trade, engineering, medicine, and even arts. And none of the emerging cultures show even a modicum of interest in following the aristocratic tradition of truthfulness that is the reason that we developed these consequential technologies.
The western enlightenment was a lie. A decline. A failure. Because escaping mysticism was an act of truthfulness, but imposing unearned enfranchisement was an act of deception in order to obtain power. And when we were beset with the global consequences of our military success, we failed to expand the discipline of truth – taking it, like our heroism, as a given: a natural inclination of man. But man has only one natural inclination: to acquire all he can using his limited reason and knowledge by either good or ill. That is all. We domesticated man and raised mankind out of ignorance and poverty in the ancient and modern worlds. We must end all our fantasies of man’s nature. And we must rule mankind. Or the next dark age will be worse than the last. -
We Must Rule
[W]e must rule. We must restore our tradition of rule. We must rule not because we are right, or best, but because everyone else is demonstrably worse. We must rule because without our rule, humanity has no example to draw from that is not the cancer of the Muslims or the Chinese or the chaos of the Africans. The world today is dependent almost entirely on western example in science, law, contract, trade, engineering, medicine, and even arts. And none of the emerging cultures show even a modicum of interest in following the aristocratic tradition of truthfulness that is the reason that we developed these consequential technologies.
The western enlightenment was a lie. A decline. A failure. Because escaping mysticism was an act of truthfulness, but imposing unearned enfranchisement was an act of deception in order to obtain power. And when we were beset with the global consequences of our military success, we failed to expand the discipline of truth – taking it, like our heroism, as a given: a natural inclination of man. But man has only one natural inclination: to acquire all he can using his limited reason and knowledge by either good or ill. That is all. We domesticated man and raised mankind out of ignorance and poverty in the ancient and modern worlds. We must end all our fantasies of man’s nature. And we must rule mankind. Or the next dark age will be worse than the last. -
Ukraine. An Unpleasant Verdict on Her Future
[I] have been speaking or presenting to Ukrainians a lot of late, and I’ve come to understand that the damage done by Russia to her people and these people, to the Chinese by law, policy, and influence, to the Indians by education and influence, to the west by imitation, and maybe to all mankind by consequence, is as great as the damage done by christianity to our people in the ancient era. Ukrainians had common law, credible judges, a moral population, a middle class, and high culture. It was a very poor country. And the Russians brought schools, roads, and hospitals to the peasantry. But they also brought genocide, secret police, “disappearances”, torture, gulags, slave labor, distrust, rule by fear, a culture of deceit, a culture of corruption, a culture of immorality… and a thousand other ills that are nearly impossible to reverse without generations and strong leadership from western aristocratic peoples. The Russians do not accept their crimes any more than the jews accept theirs, the Chinese theirs, or the ancient christians theirs. The americans and British do recognize their failures. But still they try to drag man into prosperity and out of his natural state of endemic corruption. And they do not know or accept that the reason for their success was their ancestor’s aristocratic paternal parenting of degenerate, corrupt, violent man. And without their rule man cannot be dragged out of ignorance and poverty. But dragging Ukraine out of her poverty is a task the Ukrainian people are no longer fit for. They lack the will, the agency, the courage, the discipline, to systematically crush corruption in all walks of life through persistent universal threats of violence. So I have changed my mind. Ukraine has a Russian-created and maintained, failed state, and the people suffer in poverty for it. Ukrainans are genetically exceptional. They are our Urheimat. Our purest kin. Ukrainians are not genetically broken, but they are culturally (normatively) broken. Having given birth to great thinkers such as Menger and Mises, they are as corrupt now as the Jews and Russians that corrupted them. They merely lack the aggression of Jews and Russians. They lack courage. They lack empirical rather than moral reasoning. They lack the understanding of incentives that comes with a middle class and a middle class bureaucracy. They are no longer superstitious christians but remain moral christians lacking all conviction. Last night, a reporter told me I was a romantic to think that the judiciary could be fixed. I thought that was strange because my solution was to hang a lot of them, increase the salaries of the younger generation, give the judiciary its own sheriff force of ex-military men, create an inspectors branch, and then reorganized bureaucracies one at a time using technology to create transparency. But just as a revolution requires outside financial support, reformation of Ukrainian law and bureaucracy requires outside financial support. And during the 20th century, states could use fiat currency to borrow against future production, and pay for their transformations. In the Russian and Chinese era they turned to slave labor to accomplish what capitalists accomplished with fiat credit. So Ukraine would need to effectively go into a receivership model relationship with a third party – the EU, or America, or Canada – in order to make use of third party funds to pay for her restoration. Loosely speaking, this restoration of the government would cost is in the neighborhood of $5B over 6 years, with a >50% likelihood that an additional $2.5B would be required. Most of this cost would go to increased salaries in the judicial, sheriff, and investigatory branch, and for the software to create transparency in the government, but partly made up by increased fees now captured by corruption (theft), which the citizens will be willing to pay – even if it means they only pay the increased fees for the ‘faster processing’ lines. The primary cost of software in such cases is adapting it to the miscreant processes followed by a bureaucracies. Instead, Ukrainian reform would restructure the bureaucracy to accommodate the software processes. We would need to train and bond people in the bureaucracy and every person would be criminally liable, without exception, for his actions and the actions of all others in his or her chain of processing. There is an argument to be made that bribery here amounts to pay-for-service, with the government employees obtaining only a minimum salary. Very much like commissioned salespeople. And in many bureaucracies this understandable as long as it is still POSSIBLE to spend time (delay) instead of money. However, collecting fees for preferential service given the different value of each of our time, is different from collecting fees for circumventing law, or collecting fees for violating the law, or collecting fees to avoid punishment by the law, or collecting fees to avoid false prosecution under constructed (intentionally exploited) laws. In the past few days I have seen corruption that we westerners cannot imagine: Judges requiring bribes to give a fair sentence instead of an exaggerated sentence: this is extortion plain and simple. I have seen a state media outlet whose director is appointed, so that he can pay kickbacks from ghost jobs to the city council members that appoint him. I have seen parents educate their children in how to find jobs that allow corruption, and how to get away with corruption. I have seen policemen bribed by ‘bums’ to let them sleep on benches. I’ve seen policemen bribed by street vendors so that they can harass passer’s by, and encroach on public streets. The source of liberty is not government. It is that priesthood we westerners take for granted because they do not teach us myths, direct us to specific ends, or interact with us in rituals other than court and jury. This priesthood has served us for thousands of years. Improving during most, regressing during some. it is the priesthood and the militia that govern. The rest is consequence. Liberty is created at the bottom by men who tolerate nothing else. Ukrainians are a bit lazy, a bit cowardly, a bit suspicious, a bit dishonest, a bit ignorant, and a bit dirty, and all too comfortable with taking joy in petty thievery. They are all these things. They think ‘small’. They are just like the southern Italians prior to the european integration. They are examples of Banfield’s “Moral Basis of a Backward Society”. They are (like the Russians who made them) a Backward Society. They need aristocracy or a judicial priesthood, and a militia of common men desirous of prosperity for themselves and their kin. Political processes do not supply moral men. Moral men supply moral political processes, and immoral men supply immoral political processes. We all rule with the men we have. To rule morally requires moral men. To rule immorally requires immoral men. And Ukrainians have no moral men of courage with which to rule. And that is the sum of my four years struggling to understand them. And I am heartbroken by it.
-
Ukraine. An Unpleasant Verdict on Her Future
[I] have been speaking or presenting to Ukrainians a lot of late, and I’ve come to understand that the damage done by Russia to her people and these people, to the Chinese by law, policy, and influence, to the Indians by education and influence, to the west by imitation, and maybe to all mankind by consequence, is as great as the damage done by christianity to our people in the ancient era. Ukrainians had common law, credible judges, a moral population, a middle class, and high culture. It was a very poor country. And the Russians brought schools, roads, and hospitals to the peasantry. But they also brought genocide, secret police, “disappearances”, torture, gulags, slave labor, distrust, rule by fear, a culture of deceit, a culture of corruption, a culture of immorality… and a thousand other ills that are nearly impossible to reverse without generations and strong leadership from western aristocratic peoples. The Russians do not accept their crimes any more than the jews accept theirs, the Chinese theirs, or the ancient christians theirs. The americans and British do recognize their failures. But still they try to drag man into prosperity and out of his natural state of endemic corruption. And they do not know or accept that the reason for their success was their ancestor’s aristocratic paternal parenting of degenerate, corrupt, violent man. And without their rule man cannot be dragged out of ignorance and poverty. But dragging Ukraine out of her poverty is a task the Ukrainian people are no longer fit for. They lack the will, the agency, the courage, the discipline, to systematically crush corruption in all walks of life through persistent universal threats of violence. So I have changed my mind. Ukraine has a Russian-created and maintained, failed state, and the people suffer in poverty for it. Ukrainans are genetically exceptional. They are our Urheimat. Our purest kin. Ukrainians are not genetically broken, but they are culturally (normatively) broken. Having given birth to great thinkers such as Menger and Mises, they are as corrupt now as the Jews and Russians that corrupted them. They merely lack the aggression of Jews and Russians. They lack courage. They lack empirical rather than moral reasoning. They lack the understanding of incentives that comes with a middle class and a middle class bureaucracy. They are no longer superstitious christians but remain moral christians lacking all conviction. Last night, a reporter told me I was a romantic to think that the judiciary could be fixed. I thought that was strange because my solution was to hang a lot of them, increase the salaries of the younger generation, give the judiciary its own sheriff force of ex-military men, create an inspectors branch, and then reorganized bureaucracies one at a time using technology to create transparency. But just as a revolution requires outside financial support, reformation of Ukrainian law and bureaucracy requires outside financial support. And during the 20th century, states could use fiat currency to borrow against future production, and pay for their transformations. In the Russian and Chinese era they turned to slave labor to accomplish what capitalists accomplished with fiat credit. So Ukraine would need to effectively go into a receivership model relationship with a third party – the EU, or America, or Canada – in order to make use of third party funds to pay for her restoration. Loosely speaking, this restoration of the government would cost is in the neighborhood of $5B over 6 years, with a >50% likelihood that an additional $2.5B would be required. Most of this cost would go to increased salaries in the judicial, sheriff, and investigatory branch, and for the software to create transparency in the government, but partly made up by increased fees now captured by corruption (theft), which the citizens will be willing to pay – even if it means they only pay the increased fees for the ‘faster processing’ lines. The primary cost of software in such cases is adapting it to the miscreant processes followed by a bureaucracies. Instead, Ukrainian reform would restructure the bureaucracy to accommodate the software processes. We would need to train and bond people in the bureaucracy and every person would be criminally liable, without exception, for his actions and the actions of all others in his or her chain of processing. There is an argument to be made that bribery here amounts to pay-for-service, with the government employees obtaining only a minimum salary. Very much like commissioned salespeople. And in many bureaucracies this understandable as long as it is still POSSIBLE to spend time (delay) instead of money. However, collecting fees for preferential service given the different value of each of our time, is different from collecting fees for circumventing law, or collecting fees for violating the law, or collecting fees to avoid punishment by the law, or collecting fees to avoid false prosecution under constructed (intentionally exploited) laws. In the past few days I have seen corruption that we westerners cannot imagine: Judges requiring bribes to give a fair sentence instead of an exaggerated sentence: this is extortion plain and simple. I have seen a state media outlet whose director is appointed, so that he can pay kickbacks from ghost jobs to the city council members that appoint him. I have seen parents educate their children in how to find jobs that allow corruption, and how to get away with corruption. I have seen policemen bribed by ‘bums’ to let them sleep on benches. I’ve seen policemen bribed by street vendors so that they can harass passer’s by, and encroach on public streets. The source of liberty is not government. It is that priesthood we westerners take for granted because they do not teach us myths, direct us to specific ends, or interact with us in rituals other than court and jury. This priesthood has served us for thousands of years. Improving during most, regressing during some. it is the priesthood and the militia that govern. The rest is consequence. Liberty is created at the bottom by men who tolerate nothing else. Ukrainians are a bit lazy, a bit cowardly, a bit suspicious, a bit dishonest, a bit ignorant, and a bit dirty, and all too comfortable with taking joy in petty thievery. They are all these things. They think ‘small’. They are just like the southern Italians prior to the european integration. They are examples of Banfield’s “Moral Basis of a Backward Society”. They are (like the Russians who made them) a Backward Society. They need aristocracy or a judicial priesthood, and a militia of common men desirous of prosperity for themselves and their kin. Political processes do not supply moral men. Moral men supply moral political processes, and immoral men supply immoral political processes. We all rule with the men we have. To rule morally requires moral men. To rule immorally requires immoral men. And Ukrainians have no moral men of courage with which to rule. And that is the sum of my four years struggling to understand them. And I am heartbroken by it.
-
Non-Descriptive, Non-Operational Definitions, Are One Of The Reasons for the Failure of Libertarianism
[N]on-descriptive definitions are part of the reason for the failure of libertarianism. With descriptive definitions rather than vague obscurantist “principles” the philosophical vacuousness of the movement is readily exposed.
The reason these debates still occur, and the reason this article is just one of thousands of similar pretentions is the fact that the NAP is untestable. And as I have argued, it is untestable for the same reason that dialectical materialism is untestable: to allow for individual interpretation of scope of that which can be aggressed upon. And therefore, via suggestion, creates a false consensus on the complete sentence where there is none. Nearly all libertarian differences are reducible to differences in the definition of property that can be aggressed upon: physical, externality, normative, institutional, territorial.
The NAP sounds meaningful to many but because as an incomplete sentence, it leaves the object of aggression substitutable by each individual. AS SUCH NAP IS MORALLY RELATIVE since each person interprets the scope to which aggression must be limited differently.
Yet, to form a voluntary polity, one cannot posses moral relativity. The problem with any such polity is (a) whether it competes as a rational choice of membership versus competing polities (especially given high transaction costs in anarchy) and (b) whether it is possible to sustain competition for power from within such a polity, and (c) whether such a polity would be tolerated by neighboring polities.
The NAP is just another bit of verbal deception like dialectical materialism or the labor theory of value. It’s another bit of pseudoscientific nonsense. one does not determine that which is “right” – others do. One determines what is right by whether or not others retaliate against you for it.
Walter Bock and Murray Rothbard’s ancestors practiced the NAP in the wildlands and ghettos of Eastern Europe, and were almost always exterminated or outcast for it. And it is probably the reason why the polity was never able to functionally produce the commons that were necessary for the defense of and holding of territory.
The jewish method of argument originating in their scriptures is indirection, suggestion, and externality. The entire methodology of monotheistic abrahamic religion is deception by suggestion using half truths, loading, overloading and repetition. (Gossiping). The methods of marx, freud, boaz, cantor, mises, rothbard are all examples of this kind of deceit. They give us half truths consisting of comforting lies, that we desperately wish to believe, and through heaping of undue praise, the parchment, pulpit, book, magazine, newspaper, radio, television, play and movie they distribute a desirable falsehood in order to obscure the unpleasant truth. Lies are much cheaper than truths and more desirable. So in every era that new means of distributing lies at a discount was made possible by technology, thy have created new methods of lying and distributed them vociferously.
The only liberty that is existentially possible is that which prohibits retaliation, because it is the need for costly retaliation that causes demand for the authoritarian state to suppress retaliation. The only cure is to provide an institutional means for resolving any and all cases of retaliation, so that there is no existentially possible demand for the state that is not in and of itself a demand for parasitism.
Period. End of story. Individual moral choice is a lie. Morality is empirically determined by the value of cooperation and the cost of retaliation.
But it is a cognitive bias, probably born of developmental defect that causes people to become attracted to libertarianism in order to claim to determine morality on their own, of their own choice, rather than out of necessity. And why? Because as outcasts the desire to escape payment for normative and physical commons is a rational reaction to obtaining less value from the commons than one is required to pay in costs.
-
Non-Descriptive, Non-Operational Definitions, Are One Of The Reasons for the Failure of Libertarianism
[N]on-descriptive definitions are part of the reason for the failure of libertarianism. With descriptive definitions rather than vague obscurantist “principles” the philosophical vacuousness of the movement is readily exposed.
The reason these debates still occur, and the reason this article is just one of thousands of similar pretentions is the fact that the NAP is untestable. And as I have argued, it is untestable for the same reason that dialectical materialism is untestable: to allow for individual interpretation of scope of that which can be aggressed upon. And therefore, via suggestion, creates a false consensus on the complete sentence where there is none. Nearly all libertarian differences are reducible to differences in the definition of property that can be aggressed upon: physical, externality, normative, institutional, territorial.
The NAP sounds meaningful to many but because as an incomplete sentence, it leaves the object of aggression substitutable by each individual. AS SUCH NAP IS MORALLY RELATIVE since each person interprets the scope to which aggression must be limited differently.
Yet, to form a voluntary polity, one cannot posses moral relativity. The problem with any such polity is (a) whether it competes as a rational choice of membership versus competing polities (especially given high transaction costs in anarchy) and (b) whether it is possible to sustain competition for power from within such a polity, and (c) whether such a polity would be tolerated by neighboring polities.
The NAP is just another bit of verbal deception like dialectical materialism or the labor theory of value. It’s another bit of pseudoscientific nonsense. one does not determine that which is “right” – others do. One determines what is right by whether or not others retaliate against you for it.
Walter Bock and Murray Rothbard’s ancestors practiced the NAP in the wildlands and ghettos of Eastern Europe, and were almost always exterminated or outcast for it. And it is probably the reason why the polity was never able to functionally produce the commons that were necessary for the defense of and holding of territory.
The jewish method of argument originating in their scriptures is indirection, suggestion, and externality. The entire methodology of monotheistic abrahamic religion is deception by suggestion using half truths, loading, overloading and repetition. (Gossiping). The methods of marx, freud, boaz, cantor, mises, rothbard are all examples of this kind of deceit. They give us half truths consisting of comforting lies, that we desperately wish to believe, and through heaping of undue praise, the parchment, pulpit, book, magazine, newspaper, radio, television, play and movie they distribute a desirable falsehood in order to obscure the unpleasant truth. Lies are much cheaper than truths and more desirable. So in every era that new means of distributing lies at a discount was made possible by technology, thy have created new methods of lying and distributed them vociferously.
The only liberty that is existentially possible is that which prohibits retaliation, because it is the need for costly retaliation that causes demand for the authoritarian state to suppress retaliation. The only cure is to provide an institutional means for resolving any and all cases of retaliation, so that there is no existentially possible demand for the state that is not in and of itself a demand for parasitism.
Period. End of story. Individual moral choice is a lie. Morality is empirically determined by the value of cooperation and the cost of retaliation.
But it is a cognitive bias, probably born of developmental defect that causes people to become attracted to libertarianism in order to claim to determine morality on their own, of their own choice, rather than out of necessity. And why? Because as outcasts the desire to escape payment for normative and physical commons is a rational reaction to obtaining less value from the commons than one is required to pay in costs.
-
The Disciplines
COMPARISONS
Arithmetic: Pure number/ scale,time,space independence
Music: The “Experience” of Numbers
Accounting: Corresponding Units (commensurability)
Algebra: Operations and States (symbolic manipulations)
Geometry: stationary space
Physics/Astronomy: movement in space and time
Calculus : Relative change
Statistics: Similarities in different Distributions
Economics: Similarities of distributions in Equilibrium
PHYSICS
Physics of the observable.
Ecology
Biology
Chemistry
Genetics
Physics-of-the-unobservable
TESTIMONY
Vocabulary: Symbols
Grammar: Operations
Logic: Internal Consistency
Rhetoric: Persuasion(Transfer)
Testimony: (due diligence)
Prosecution: (criticism)
Jurying (Judging): (decidability)
ARGUMENT
Expressive: (pre-rational)
Sentimental (intuitionistic)
Moral (Normative)
Reasonable (sympathetically testable)
Historical (analogical)
Rational (justificationary):
Empirical (correlative)
Ratio-Empirical (critical)
Testimonial (truthful)PRODUCTION
Money-Proper,
Accounting, profit and loss
Banking, Credit, Interest
Stock-Money, Instruments
Exchanges and Flows
COOPERATION
Acquisition (property)
Cooperation (exchange)
Manners (signaling)
Ethics (direct asymmetry of information)
Morals (external asymmetry of information)
Liberty (political asymmetry of power)
Aristocracy (enfranchisement in insurance of liberty)
Law
HISTORY
Geological
Biological
Technological
Economic
Normative (cultural)
Cooperative (political)
Competitive (war)
ART
Materials
Decoration
Design
Drawing
Painting
Sculpture
Architecture
MUSIC
Melody
Song
Composition
Symphony
Opera/Musical
LITERATURE
Parable/Fable
Story/Novel
Play/Theatre
Movie/Series
“Next-Experience”
SPEECH
Saying
Speech
Poem