[C]hurches are our monuments. Monuments claim territory. I want the churches: Arsenal. Banking and Credit. Education. Training. It sounds nuts. But it’s brilliant really.
(h/t: Aaron Kahland )
Source: Original Site Post
-
Fukuyama Didn’t Understand
[T]he Chinese developed their bureaucracy precisely because they FAILED to solve the problem of politics. The west solved it. We just didn’t know it.
CENTRALIZED———-WEAK————NOMOCRATIC LIARS——————————————-TRUTH TELLERS DIVERSE—————————————HOMOGENOUS -
Fukuyama Didn’t Understand
[T]he Chinese developed their bureaucracy precisely because they FAILED to solve the problem of politics. The west solved it. We just didn’t know it.
CENTRALIZED———-WEAK————NOMOCRATIC LIARS——————————————-TRUTH TELLERS DIVERSE—————————————HOMOGENOUS -
Licenses as Warranty Because of the Failure of the Academy.
[W]e have Series 7 license for investment. We have the MD for medicine. We have the RN for medicine We have the Bar for law. We have the CPA for accounting
Why not an equivalent for lending? Why not an equivalent for handling money in any capacity (all employees)? Why not the same for speech-for-fee? (journalism) After all, the academy makes no warranty. We require these licenses precisely BECAUSE the academy makes no warranty. The Libertarian solution is private insurance. But losing your ticket is insurance enough. Insurance creates perverse incentives also. -
Licenses as Warranty Because of the Failure of the Academy.
[W]e have Series 7 license for investment. We have the MD for medicine. We have the RN for medicine We have the Bar for law. We have the CPA for accounting
Why not an equivalent for lending? Why not an equivalent for handling money in any capacity (all employees)? Why not the same for speech-for-fee? (journalism) After all, the academy makes no warranty. We require these licenses precisely BECAUSE the academy makes no warranty. The Libertarian solution is private insurance. But losing your ticket is insurance enough. Insurance creates perverse incentives also. -
Defending Murray : Even Scott Sumner is the Victim of Selective Temporal ‘Mathiness’.
RE: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/06/charles_murray_5.html [S]cott, Murray, like most conservatives, is studying, and conveying observations about our change in NORMATIVE capital, not income or consumption. Deviation from northern european traditional norms is a luxury good ( the absolute nuclear family, delayed marriage, delayed reproduction, high investment parenting, the manorial/protestant work ethic, hight trust from homogeneity, truth-telling/testimony ). RELATING YOUR POST TO ROMER’S ‘MATHINESS’ (a)While you haven’t read the book, the fact that you, who are one of our very best (IMHO), immediately assume the mainstream bias that income (an easily visible measure) is somehow meaningful rather than merely a justification of priors – and it provides a more valuable insight into the ‘mathiness’ of mainstream economics, than murray’s book does about the destruction of the family as the central unit of inter-temporal reproduction and temporal production that was in no small part, caused by that mainstream bias and ‘mathiness’. (b) No economic hypothesis can be ‘true’ in the sense that it is descriptively complete, and therefore free of error, bias, and deception, if we fail to account for the full spectrum of costs in the full spectrum of time frames. That is after all, the only measure of costs: opportunity costs. So solving for income or consumption demonstrates a selection bias, under the assumption that all negative externalities are less ‘bad’ than the ‘good’ produced by observable increases in income and consumption. In other words, if we stack all possible forms of capital by the length of the production cycle and it’s corresponding consumption or decay, then what is the net change? The conservative mind is biased to the long term, to saving, to risk, and to disgust. It is a reproductive strategy – a very masculine one perhaps – and the absolute nuclear family is central to it. And it was a very expensive reproductive strategy to develop – which is why was unique. He does not make the leap (not being an economist) to the extremely damaging suggestion that we move people to capital (a heavy industrial era bias) and it’s destruction of the family and its impact upon norms, instead of moving capital to people (a post-heaving-industrial economy) in order to preserve and expand normative capital. America’s dirty secret is that pervasive consumption is an insufficient reward for loneliness and isolation. Americans are heavily drug dependent for the sole reason that they are the most lonely and isolated peoples on earth, for whom the media is a poor substitute for friends and family. The absolute nuclear family is necessary, perhaps, but it can only persist within a civic society. The civic society is a product of the absolute nuclear family. It cannot exist otherwise. So what is the cost of the destruction of the family in pursuit of income and consumption? What will be the cost of 40% of american women on anti-depressants? Mathiness is most visible in the selection bias demonstrated by measuring temporally differential income rather than inter-temporarily differential consumption. But that is not the most important effect of quantitative pseudoscience: it is the destruction of long term capital in favor of short term consumption and the placement of faith in technology to rescue us from the consequences of it. So, it is not so trivial a question as you suppose. It’s an illustration of everything that is wrong with modern macro’s mathniess. It’s not the use of math. It’s measuring in favor of bias. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Defending Murray : Even Scott Sumner is the Victim of Selective Temporal ‘Mathiness’.
RE: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/06/charles_murray_5.html [S]cott, Murray, like most conservatives, is studying, and conveying observations about our change in NORMATIVE capital, not income or consumption. Deviation from northern european traditional norms is a luxury good ( the absolute nuclear family, delayed marriage, delayed reproduction, high investment parenting, the manorial/protestant work ethic, hight trust from homogeneity, truth-telling/testimony ). RELATING YOUR POST TO ROMER’S ‘MATHINESS’ (a)While you haven’t read the book, the fact that you, who are one of our very best (IMHO), immediately assume the mainstream bias that income (an easily visible measure) is somehow meaningful rather than merely a justification of priors – and it provides a more valuable insight into the ‘mathiness’ of mainstream economics, than murray’s book does about the destruction of the family as the central unit of inter-temporal reproduction and temporal production that was in no small part, caused by that mainstream bias and ‘mathiness’. (b) No economic hypothesis can be ‘true’ in the sense that it is descriptively complete, and therefore free of error, bias, and deception, if we fail to account for the full spectrum of costs in the full spectrum of time frames. That is after all, the only measure of costs: opportunity costs. So solving for income or consumption demonstrates a selection bias, under the assumption that all negative externalities are less ‘bad’ than the ‘good’ produced by observable increases in income and consumption. In other words, if we stack all possible forms of capital by the length of the production cycle and it’s corresponding consumption or decay, then what is the net change? The conservative mind is biased to the long term, to saving, to risk, and to disgust. It is a reproductive strategy – a very masculine one perhaps – and the absolute nuclear family is central to it. And it was a very expensive reproductive strategy to develop – which is why was unique. He does not make the leap (not being an economist) to the extremely damaging suggestion that we move people to capital (a heavy industrial era bias) and it’s destruction of the family and its impact upon norms, instead of moving capital to people (a post-heaving-industrial economy) in order to preserve and expand normative capital. America’s dirty secret is that pervasive consumption is an insufficient reward for loneliness and isolation. Americans are heavily drug dependent for the sole reason that they are the most lonely and isolated peoples on earth, for whom the media is a poor substitute for friends and family. The absolute nuclear family is necessary, perhaps, but it can only persist within a civic society. The civic society is a product of the absolute nuclear family. It cannot exist otherwise. So what is the cost of the destruction of the family in pursuit of income and consumption? What will be the cost of 40% of american women on anti-depressants? Mathiness is most visible in the selection bias demonstrated by measuring temporally differential income rather than inter-temporarily differential consumption. But that is not the most important effect of quantitative pseudoscience: it is the destruction of long term capital in favor of short term consumption and the placement of faith in technology to rescue us from the consequences of it. So, it is not so trivial a question as you suppose. It’s an illustration of everything that is wrong with modern macro’s mathniess. It’s not the use of math. It’s measuring in favor of bias. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
The Institutions of Nomocracy (Rule of Law)
[I]nstitutions:
The People : A partnership of reciprocal insurance including every living soul in the polity.
The Militia : Defense and Emergency Services
The Military : Defense, Strategy, Offense.
The Judiciary : The Common Organic Law
The Houses of the Commons : Production of Commons
The Treasury (The corporation that manages shares of stock as money)
The Academy : Education
The Monarchy : A family whose head has veto over the houses of the Commons.Source: Curt Doolittle
-
The Institutions of Nomocracy (Rule of Law)
[I]nstitutions:
The People : A partnership of reciprocal insurance including every living soul in the polity.
The Militia : Defense and Emergency Services
The Military : Defense, Strategy, Offense.
The Judiciary : The Common Organic Law
The Houses of the Commons : Production of Commons
The Treasury (The corporation that manages shares of stock as money)
The Academy : Education
The Monarchy : A family whose head has veto over the houses of the Commons.Source: Curt Doolittle
-
Libertarian: Aristocratic Egalitarian Nomocratic Classical Liberal
[A]RISTOCRATIC (rule by best) EGALITARIAN (open to all) NOMOCRACTIC (rule of law) CLASSICAL LIBERAL (divisions into houses representing classes ) AND THEREFORE LIBERTARIAN (an advocate for institutional liberty.. My point in writing this is that I’m not a ‘white nationalist’. I’m a universal nationalist. A higher-tribalist. An advocate for truth, science, and nomocracy; for the market production of commons. What does that mean?
It means that we can choose a spectrum between a corporations resulting in castes, or nations (extended families) resulting in aristocracy. But we will never achieve equality. It’s impossible because we are too vastly unequal to one another in value to one another (capability). It is our lower classes that cannot merge. Our aristocracies are, and must be global. But bringing our lower classes – reliant on one another – to capital, and particularly to normative and institutional capital, is suicidal. Our differences are expressed by our lower classes. our similarities by our upper classes. Yet our upper classes can only obtain status (and status can only be widely manufactured by positive (non consumptive) means, if there are many nations, with many aristocrats. Aristocracy gains its status signals from raising its people from one state and one distribution to another state and another distribution. Otherwise they are just parasites on their own people. So I advocate universal aristocracy. Universal tribalism. Universal familialism. And as such I am an anti-corporatist in both private and public institutions. To no small degree, I view the emphasis on signaling via consumption and the offloading of underclasses to more developed nations, as a total abdication of aristocratic responsibility for the parental development of their civilizations.Source: Curt Doolittle