(very important concepts) (important piece) [W]eber was right, in that the evolution of civilization was achieved through improvements in various kinds of ‘calculation’ – a term which will not sufficiently convey the depth of importance or meaning to the uninitiated. CALCULATION (ability to ‘think’ and plan)– Perception, Comparison, Decidability, and Memory We are somewhat aware of the vast leaps in Perception, Comparison, Decidability, and Memory: that arose from Writing, Numbers and Arithmetic, Accounting, Mathematics, Calculus, and Statistics (which are different disciplines). – Planning (production) Those of us who learn economics understand the institutions of Money, Prices, Credit, Interest, Banking, Bonds, Stocks, Financial Insurance, and how they assist us in cooperating at vast scales. – Evolution and Equilibria (discovery) And some of us are aware of the vast change in human thinking that arose from the concept of evolution (self organizing). This is not limited to biological evolution (information organization in equilibria), but also to economics(information organization in equilibria), but also to the evolution of scientific knowledge (information organization in equilibria) in which knowledge is that which survives from free association, to hypothesis, to theory, and to law; – Existence (operational naming) And I think fewer people are aware of the vast change in human thinking that arose from the act of programming (existential necessity), and database development (existential dependency), – Truth (removal of imagination, error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception) and very very few of us are aware of my work in Truth (testimonial organization in equilibria) in which Truth is what survives criticism, and testimony a warranty of due diligence, not a warranty of truth itself, and ultimate truth merely the most parsimonious statement possible. PRODUCTION OF REPRODUCTION And some of us in familial organizations: – State Enforced Individual Monetary Union (feminism) – Nuclear Family, Egalitarian Nuclear – Extended Family, Stem Family, Authoritarian Family – Traditional Family, Communitarian Family – Hetaeristic Monogamy – Pairing Family, Serial Marriage – Punaluan Family – Consanguine Family PRODUCTION OF ORGANIZATIONS OF PRODUCTION ITSELF And some of us are aware of the evolution in productive organizations: – Military Hierarchical (simple production) – Bureaucratic Hierarchical (capital production) – Professional (talent production) PRODUCTION OF ORGANIZATIONS OF PRODUCING COMMONS Some of us are aware of the vast difference in state organizations: – Authoritarian Socialist Economy. ( Dysgenic – Minimize Holdings ) – Social Democratic Mixed Economy ( Dysgenic – maximize takings ) – Private Capitalistic Libertarian Economy (Eugenic – maximize holding) WEAPONS OF INFLUENCE IN ORGANIZATION (reputations) – Cooperation (ordinary cooperation in the process of production) (personal reputation in memory) – Religion (normative promise) (demonstrated behavior) ostracization – Law (criminal reputations) (writing and record keeping) Violence – Credit (economic reputations) (computers) deprivation of consumption – ‘Software Reputations’ (the most detailed yet – the internet) ???? (deprivation of relations) DO YOU SEE THE PATTERN? We already constitute the equivalent of a hive mind. The problem for our collective consciousness is in reducing error. And that error is the product of dysgenia.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Reframe The Debate: Conservative = Aristocratic
(reframe the debate)WESTERN ‘CONSERVATISM’ = ‘ARISTOCRACY’ = ‘ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM’ [W]e must reframe the debate, swapping the word ‘Conservative’ for ‘Aristocratic’, and ‘progressive’ for ‘Socialistic’. Aristocratic (paternal meritocratic) Egalitarian (open to all of merit who voluntarily take the oath not to steal.)
-
Reframe The Debate: Conservative = Aristocratic
(reframe the debate)WESTERN ‘CONSERVATISM’ = ‘ARISTOCRACY’ = ‘ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM’ [W]e must reframe the debate, swapping the word ‘Conservative’ for ‘Aristocratic’, and ‘progressive’ for ‘Socialistic’. Aristocratic (paternal meritocratic) Egalitarian (open to all of merit who voluntarily take the oath not to steal.)
-
The Secrets of the West’s Success
(important piece) [W]e can finally piece together the west’s struggle to ‘transcend’ the human animal, and to become our gods. Truth is the common thread. THE SECRETS OF THE WEST’S SUCCESS: AXIS 1) Militarism, Militia, Heroism, Truth, AXIS 2) Sovereignty. Private Property, Voluntary Exchange, Contract AXIS 3) Jury, Common Law, Rule of law & Universal Standing, Natural Law AXIS 4) Debate, Reason, Philosophy, Logic, Science, Medicine AXIS 6) Near Breeding Eugenics, Manorial Eugenics, Criminal Eugenics CLASSES The People Who Fight (defense – order) Aristocratic. The People Who Farm (capital – production) Libertarian. The People Who Gather (labor – consumption) Socialist. THE CATASTROPHE’S The Follies: Athenian/Spartan and Anglo/German civil wars. The Plagues: i) Justinian / Arab ii) The Black Death The Invasions: The demographic invasions of Greece, Of Rome, Of the Roman Empire, of Europe and Americas. The Great Lies: i) Jewish Christianity, ii) Jewish Pseudoscience, iii) Islamism The Great Losses: Arab and Turkish Conquests of The East , The Communist Revolution in Russia, Russian Conquest of Eastern Europe, TECHNOLOGIES (undone) 1) Narrative, Writing, The Story, The Dramatic Play, The Novel, The Serial. 2) Counting, Positional Numbering, Arithmetic, Accounting, Computerized Accounting, 3) Mathematics (sets), Geometry (space), Calculus (relative change), Statistics (probability), 4) (physics) 5) (evolutionary biology) 6) (economics) 7) (truth) Syllogism, ..(correspondence).. Critical Rationalism, Testimonialism, …
-
The Secrets of the West’s Success
(important piece) [W]e can finally piece together the west’s struggle to ‘transcend’ the human animal, and to become our gods. Truth is the common thread. THE SECRETS OF THE WEST’S SUCCESS: AXIS 1) Militarism, Militia, Heroism, Truth, AXIS 2) Sovereignty. Private Property, Voluntary Exchange, Contract AXIS 3) Jury, Common Law, Rule of law & Universal Standing, Natural Law AXIS 4) Debate, Reason, Philosophy, Logic, Science, Medicine AXIS 6) Near Breeding Eugenics, Manorial Eugenics, Criminal Eugenics CLASSES The People Who Fight (defense – order) Aristocratic. The People Who Farm (capital – production) Libertarian. The People Who Gather (labor – consumption) Socialist. THE CATASTROPHE’S The Follies: Athenian/Spartan and Anglo/German civil wars. The Plagues: i) Justinian / Arab ii) The Black Death The Invasions: The demographic invasions of Greece, Of Rome, Of the Roman Empire, of Europe and Americas. The Great Lies: i) Jewish Christianity, ii) Jewish Pseudoscience, iii) Islamism The Great Losses: Arab and Turkish Conquests of The East , The Communist Revolution in Russia, Russian Conquest of Eastern Europe, TECHNOLOGIES (undone) 1) Narrative, Writing, The Story, The Dramatic Play, The Novel, The Serial. 2) Counting, Positional Numbering, Arithmetic, Accounting, Computerized Accounting, 3) Mathematics (sets), Geometry (space), Calculus (relative change), Statistics (probability), 4) (physics) 5) (evolutionary biology) 6) (economics) 7) (truth) Syllogism, ..(correspondence).. Critical Rationalism, Testimonialism, …
-
Teoría de los costos de transacción de gobierno
Original article by Curt Doolittle : http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/12/11/the-transaction-cost-theory-of-government/Translation by Alberto R. Zambrano U. [L]a historia dice que sólo el desarrollo de un estado – una burocracia monopolista- transfiere los altos costos locales de transacciones sin rentas centrales, a rentas estatales y bajos costos de transacciones. Los libertarios ignoran la evidencia de los costos de transacciones y el aprovechamiento injusto a un nivel local. E ignoran aún más la demostrada necesidad de usar la violencia en forma organizada por una ente monopolio para suprimir aquellos costos de transacción y aprovechamiento injusto (“rentas locales”), y las convierten en rentas centrales de forma tal que se paga para dicha supresión. El argumento es que los estados son, de hecho, un costo neutral y que nosotros no gastamos lo suficiente en ellos en la supresión de los costos de transacción, porque los estados proveen múltiplos de retorno de esa supresión. Esto también es demostrable. La pregunta no es lo que podemos hacer sin la presencia del estado (un corporación articulada como una definición monopolista de los derechos de propiedad), sino que una vez que hayamos suprimido los costos locales de transacción, y los hallamos reemplazado con rentas centralizadas para poder producir los bienes que llamamos “derechos de propiedad” – ¿cómo suprimimos las rentas centralizado toda vez que mantenemos suprimidos los costos de transacción y la habilidad de construir bienes que dicha supresión de los costos y rentas nos permita construir? Discutir la definición de monopolio de los derechos de propiedad es de alguna forma “mala o incorrecta”, es irracional, ya que la propiedad, obtenida mediante el trabajo y el intercambio voluntario, bajo los requerimientos de productividad, garantía y simetría, es, hasta donde yo se, lógicamente consistente y las excepciones son operaciones matemáticas de números naturales. Así que la imposición de derechos de propiedad no puede ser ilógica, inmoral, no ética, sin importar la forma en la qu son impuestos ya que definen lo lógico, ético y lo moral. No existe nada malo con la violencia – de hecho, es la violencia con la que pagamos por derechos de propiedad y libertad – es nuestro primer, y más importante recurso en la construcción de la libertad. En vez de ello, la pregunta es meramente institucional: ¿Habiendo usado la violencia para centralizar los costos de transacción en rentas, cómo usamos ahora la violencia para eliminar las rentas de la organización central? Esto es bastante fácil: derechos universales de propiedad y derecho consuetudinario construido de forma orgánica, predicado sobre la base de que una ley de derechos de propiedad positivamente articulada sobre la prohibición y la supresión de transferencias involuntarias: la demanda de intercambios libres de exterioridad, productivos, garantizados y debidamente informados. Porque ésta es la única forma de cooperación que es racional, aquella que es debidamente informada, productiva, voluntaria y garantizada, en vez de su forma parasitaria. Y que la única cooperación racional es dejar a un lado la oportunidad que uno tiene de usar la violencia igualmente racional. La pregunta entonces se convierte en ¿Quién prohíbe la formación de autoridad? y esto cae en la ciudadanía: -la milicia- aquellos que poseen el monopolio de la violencia. Hasta donde yo se, éste es el análisis correcto de la evolución política, y la teoría correcta para la acción política a futuro. Curt Doolittle.
-
Teoría de los costos de transacción de gobierno
Original article by Curt Doolittle : http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/12/11/the-transaction-cost-theory-of-government/Translation by Alberto R. Zambrano U. [L]a historia dice que sólo el desarrollo de un estado – una burocracia monopolista- transfiere los altos costos locales de transacciones sin rentas centrales, a rentas estatales y bajos costos de transacciones. Los libertarios ignoran la evidencia de los costos de transacciones y el aprovechamiento injusto a un nivel local. E ignoran aún más la demostrada necesidad de usar la violencia en forma organizada por una ente monopolio para suprimir aquellos costos de transacción y aprovechamiento injusto (“rentas locales”), y las convierten en rentas centrales de forma tal que se paga para dicha supresión. El argumento es que los estados son, de hecho, un costo neutral y que nosotros no gastamos lo suficiente en ellos en la supresión de los costos de transacción, porque los estados proveen múltiplos de retorno de esa supresión. Esto también es demostrable. La pregunta no es lo que podemos hacer sin la presencia del estado (un corporación articulada como una definición monopolista de los derechos de propiedad), sino que una vez que hayamos suprimido los costos locales de transacción, y los hallamos reemplazado con rentas centralizadas para poder producir los bienes que llamamos “derechos de propiedad” – ¿cómo suprimimos las rentas centralizado toda vez que mantenemos suprimidos los costos de transacción y la habilidad de construir bienes que dicha supresión de los costos y rentas nos permita construir? Discutir la definición de monopolio de los derechos de propiedad es de alguna forma “mala o incorrecta”, es irracional, ya que la propiedad, obtenida mediante el trabajo y el intercambio voluntario, bajo los requerimientos de productividad, garantía y simetría, es, hasta donde yo se, lógicamente consistente y las excepciones son operaciones matemáticas de números naturales. Así que la imposición de derechos de propiedad no puede ser ilógica, inmoral, no ética, sin importar la forma en la qu son impuestos ya que definen lo lógico, ético y lo moral. No existe nada malo con la violencia – de hecho, es la violencia con la que pagamos por derechos de propiedad y libertad – es nuestro primer, y más importante recurso en la construcción de la libertad. En vez de ello, la pregunta es meramente institucional: ¿Habiendo usado la violencia para centralizar los costos de transacción en rentas, cómo usamos ahora la violencia para eliminar las rentas de la organización central? Esto es bastante fácil: derechos universales de propiedad y derecho consuetudinario construido de forma orgánica, predicado sobre la base de que una ley de derechos de propiedad positivamente articulada sobre la prohibición y la supresión de transferencias involuntarias: la demanda de intercambios libres de exterioridad, productivos, garantizados y debidamente informados. Porque ésta es la única forma de cooperación que es racional, aquella que es debidamente informada, productiva, voluntaria y garantizada, en vez de su forma parasitaria. Y que la única cooperación racional es dejar a un lado la oportunidad que uno tiene de usar la violencia igualmente racional. La pregunta entonces se convierte en ¿Quién prohíbe la formación de autoridad? y esto cae en la ciudadanía: -la milicia- aquellos que poseen el monopolio de la violencia. Hasta donde yo se, éste es el análisis correcto de la evolución política, y la teoría correcta para la acción política a futuro. Curt Doolittle.
-
Objective Good vs Subjective Preference
(the thrust of this argument is a conflation of good and preference, and my opponent’s presumption that because of that conflation there are no ‘goods’. This may be a bit hard to parse, but there are objective goods.) [I] think it is that I simply failed to provide sufficient touch stones so that you would draw the conclusions on your own. In other words the argument I make is a necessary one. And that is why it’s an is. That might take a bit but we will get there.
—” I would add my surprise to see you mention at the end that this is all about how things are and not should be.”— Mark
I Think you’re referring to this statement:
—“(g) as far as I know I am explaining what men do (is), not what they should do (should).”—
Which in the context I mean that men do what they must do. what they must do is what they in fact do (“is”). And what they should do is what they must do, and do (“should”). In other words, there is no difference between must, can, is and should. Or better stated, “Man justifies his group evolutionary strategy, whatever it is – he survives.”
—“I see you started out apparently very much talking about good/bad in a thread on political views necessarily based on moral views. So…?”—
So instead I am stating that moral principles necessary for in-group cooperation and are universal necessities (subject to limits), and that despite local variation in the portfolio of norms necessary for the purposes of competition, production, free rider prevention, and rent seeking, that must, can, is, and should are identical propositions. The only question is cooperation between groups with different portfolios that are incompatible. In compatibility is universally decidable by property rights independent of local variation in the portfolio. And this also is what we see men do in reality. So objective morality – rules necessary for rational beneficial voluntary cooperation – is universal.
–“good”— Mark
Now what is the difference between “preference” and “good”? Well I can prefer something I can experience myself. We can say that fulfilling a preference feels good. We can also say that something is good even if it isn’t immediately preferable. So to avoid confusion, lets say that **a preference is an experiential good, and a good is either an non-experiential intertemporal personal benefit, or objectively decidable interpersonal benefit.**
–“starting point”— Mark
So, i start with the first question of “why don’t I kill you and take your stuff”. The first question of ethics. The answer is then one of short and long run costs versus benefits. As long as one’s opponents promise greater cost than reward, we choose cooperation or boycott – if we can choose boycott. From there, to the disproportionate rewards of cooperation assuming predation is costly. Or as biological evolution has informed us: we possess the intuitive ability to both imitate, and beyond imitate to empathize, and beyond empathize to cooperate, and beyond cooperation to anticipate demand for cooperation. We evolved it because cooperation is disproportionately rewarding. But when we cooperate we must prevent free riders from undermining the incentive to cooperate – hence the human intuition to punish free riders (cheaters) even at high personal cost. If a group decides that survival is not ‘good’ (bearing a cost of an intertemporal and directly imperceptible forecast subject to risk) and does not survive then it is not ‘good’ for others to imitate it if they wish to survive. Hence over time, good is defined as what others can imitate in order to survive. So, good is an evolutionary imperative, not a preference. A preference may feel good by analogy but it is not an abstract ‘good’ – a value judgement. ie: subjective preferences and objective goods are different things. And those goods that are in fact ‘good’ are objectively ascertainable over time independent of subjective preference. Cheers
-
Objective Good vs Subjective Preference
(the thrust of this argument is a conflation of good and preference, and my opponent’s presumption that because of that conflation there are no ‘goods’. This may be a bit hard to parse, but there are objective goods.) [I] think it is that I simply failed to provide sufficient touch stones so that you would draw the conclusions on your own. In other words the argument I make is a necessary one. And that is why it’s an is. That might take a bit but we will get there.
—” I would add my surprise to see you mention at the end that this is all about how things are and not should be.”— Mark
I Think you’re referring to this statement:
—“(g) as far as I know I am explaining what men do (is), not what they should do (should).”—
Which in the context I mean that men do what they must do. what they must do is what they in fact do (“is”). And what they should do is what they must do, and do (“should”). In other words, there is no difference between must, can, is and should. Or better stated, “Man justifies his group evolutionary strategy, whatever it is – he survives.”
—“I see you started out apparently very much talking about good/bad in a thread on political views necessarily based on moral views. So…?”—
So instead I am stating that moral principles necessary for in-group cooperation and are universal necessities (subject to limits), and that despite local variation in the portfolio of norms necessary for the purposes of competition, production, free rider prevention, and rent seeking, that must, can, is, and should are identical propositions. The only question is cooperation between groups with different portfolios that are incompatible. In compatibility is universally decidable by property rights independent of local variation in the portfolio. And this also is what we see men do in reality. So objective morality – rules necessary for rational beneficial voluntary cooperation – is universal.
–“good”— Mark
Now what is the difference between “preference” and “good”? Well I can prefer something I can experience myself. We can say that fulfilling a preference feels good. We can also say that something is good even if it isn’t immediately preferable. So to avoid confusion, lets say that **a preference is an experiential good, and a good is either an non-experiential intertemporal personal benefit, or objectively decidable interpersonal benefit.**
–“starting point”— Mark
So, i start with the first question of “why don’t I kill you and take your stuff”. The first question of ethics. The answer is then one of short and long run costs versus benefits. As long as one’s opponents promise greater cost than reward, we choose cooperation or boycott – if we can choose boycott. From there, to the disproportionate rewards of cooperation assuming predation is costly. Or as biological evolution has informed us: we possess the intuitive ability to both imitate, and beyond imitate to empathize, and beyond empathize to cooperate, and beyond cooperation to anticipate demand for cooperation. We evolved it because cooperation is disproportionately rewarding. But when we cooperate we must prevent free riders from undermining the incentive to cooperate – hence the human intuition to punish free riders (cheaters) even at high personal cost. If a group decides that survival is not ‘good’ (bearing a cost of an intertemporal and directly imperceptible forecast subject to risk) and does not survive then it is not ‘good’ for others to imitate it if they wish to survive. Hence over time, good is defined as what others can imitate in order to survive. So, good is an evolutionary imperative, not a preference. A preference may feel good by analogy but it is not an abstract ‘good’ – a value judgement. ie: subjective preferences and objective goods are different things. And those goods that are in fact ‘good’ are objectively ascertainable over time independent of subjective preference. Cheers
-
Evolution of Organizing
[I]’ll add a little context by way of political economy, and say that the world (a)first organized by household and slaves in the agrarian era by kinship relations, then (b) organized militarily and monarchally for the unskilled for the seasonal production cycle with extended relations, (c) then industrially and socialistically for the semi-skilled medium term production cycle of heavy capital and long term medium term relationships between firms, and is (d) currently organizing entrepreneurially and social democratically for the educated ‘discretionary worker’ for short term production cycles, highly distributed capital, and temporary networks of firms wherever it can do so. But meanwhile (a) labor was never of much value in contrast to organizing production, and is of still declining value (b) marginal difference in firms was created by capital, and is now created by talent and creativity, (c) the duration of organizations (firms) has continued to decline along with the duration of networks of production. (d) Those countries playing catch-up will not sustain their growth because (e) institutions (trust and corruption) prevent them from doing so. So good institutions are less valuable than not having bad institutions. Worse, it appears that (f) good genetic capital is not as important as not having bad genetic capital. As France is illustrating, you can reverse the Flynn effect (benefit from transitioning from many individual rules to few simple general scientific principles of universal applicability). We are engaged in the third world war at present, and it has no sign of improvement. And neither temporary networks of production nor the governments that facilitate may be able to survive the combination of a third world war, a slowing of growth, and a continued expansion of population of the underclasses for whom gainful labor is decreasingly available. Not trying to rain on your parade, but the reverse side of the coin is just as frightening as the obverse is inspiring.