(minor criticism of the myth of the rational voter) [P]eople do vote rationally. Its rational to vote morally even at high personal cost. I dont have time to refute the part Kaplan got wrong. But it should be obvious that he got it wrong. [callout]The failure of economic thought is currently one of insufficient tribalism and insufficient nationalism.[/callout] The failure of economic thought is currently one of insufficient tribalism and insufficient nationalism. Any group that votes immorally will be exterminated by groups that vote morally. That is why the anglo world is dying: its immoral (reproductively destructive).
Source: Original Site Post
-
Yes We Need A New Mathematical Revolution On The Scale Of Calculus : The Unit Of Commensurability In That Mathematics, Is Property, And Its Grammar Is Morality
The mathematical order of big data? Property. 1) Humans (life) is acquisitive. 2) Humans seek to acquire a limited number of categories of things. from experiences (feelings), to information, affection, mates, associates, and all manner of material things. 3) Human seek to avoid losses – more so than to acquire. especially life, children, kin, and mates, but also anything else that they have acted to acquire. 4) Humans must cooperate, and seek to cooperate, in the pursuit of their acquisitions. 5) The problem of cooperation for humans(all life) outside of kin, is the prevention of, and suppression of, free riding (involuntary transfer) 6) Humans develop layers of complex rules (myths, traditions, habits, manners, ethics, morals, and common laws) to assist in cooperating in whatever structure of production they exist under. 6) All human language can be expressed in a grammar. Even the most complex and abstract ideas can be expressed in the grammar of acquisition and cooperation we commonly call ‘property’: “That in which we have acted to acquire, and the moral (legal) constraints under which we have done it. (I kind of wonder if this allows us to get past the comprehension limits of juries. At present, the trick is to have enough money, to afford to overwhelm the cognitive processing ability of the jury. It may be possible to analyze for example, a large trial, and produce a mathematical reduction of it, into terms that the jury can comprehend. The trial is still required, but we can reduce its complexity to an analogy to experience.) http://shar.es/QBhQ0
-
Yes We Need A New Mathematical Revolution On The Scale Of Calculus : The Unit Of Commensurability In That Mathematics, Is Property, And Its Grammar Is Morality
The mathematical order of big data? Property. 1) Humans (life) is acquisitive. 2) Humans seek to acquire a limited number of categories of things. from experiences (feelings), to information, affection, mates, associates, and all manner of material things. 3) Human seek to avoid losses – more so than to acquire. especially life, children, kin, and mates, but also anything else that they have acted to acquire. 4) Humans must cooperate, and seek to cooperate, in the pursuit of their acquisitions. 5) The problem of cooperation for humans(all life) outside of kin, is the prevention of, and suppression of, free riding (involuntary transfer) 6) Humans develop layers of complex rules (myths, traditions, habits, manners, ethics, morals, and common laws) to assist in cooperating in whatever structure of production they exist under. 6) All human language can be expressed in a grammar. Even the most complex and abstract ideas can be expressed in the grammar of acquisition and cooperation we commonly call ‘property’: “That in which we have acted to acquire, and the moral (legal) constraints under which we have done it. (I kind of wonder if this allows us to get past the comprehension limits of juries. At present, the trick is to have enough money, to afford to overwhelm the cognitive processing ability of the jury. It may be possible to analyze for example, a large trial, and produce a mathematical reduction of it, into terms that the jury can comprehend. The trial is still required, but we can reduce its complexity to an analogy to experience.) http://shar.es/QBhQ0
-
Justifying Parasitism: Walter Block's Advocacy Of Ghetto Ethics
[T]urns out he’s mostly wrong. Only chance of future funding streams, is to abandon parasitic ethics. Rothbard’s critique of the state is priceless, and his history is almost as good. But his choice to try to base liberty on the ethics of the ghetto, rather than the ethics of the aristocratic egalitarian polity did the movement more damage than all his other works did good. It’s non-logical, it’s ahistorical, and it’s a demonstrated failure. [W]alter is the most popular justifier of parasitic ethics in the world. And I have learned a great deal from him. But , it turns out that like rothbard, he’s just wrong. The ghetto was a state within a state, acted like a state. And rothbard’s ethics are those of exchange between states, not polities. The irony of that statement is palpable.
-
Justifying Parasitism: Walter Block’s Advocacy Of Ghetto Ethics
[T]urns out he’s mostly wrong. Only chance of future funding streams, is to abandon parasitic ethics. Rothbard’s critique of the state is priceless, and his history is almost as good. But his choice to try to base liberty on the ethics of the ghetto, rather than the ethics of the aristocratic egalitarian polity did the movement more damage than all his other works did good. It’s non-logical, it’s ahistorical, and it’s a demonstrated failure. [W]alter is the most popular justifier of parasitic ethics in the world. And I have learned a great deal from him. But , it turns out that like rothbard, he’s just wrong. The ghetto was a state within a state, acted like a state. And rothbard’s ethics are those of exchange between states, not polities. The irony of that statement is palpable.
-
Justifying Parasitism: Walter Block's Advocacy Of Ghetto Ethics
[T]urns out he’s mostly wrong. Only chance of future funding streams, is to abandon parasitic ethics. Rothbard’s critique of the state is priceless, and his history is almost as good. But his choice to try to base liberty on the ethics of the ghetto, rather than the ethics of the aristocratic egalitarian polity did the movement more damage than all his other works did good. It’s non-logical, it’s ahistorical, and it’s a demonstrated failure. [W]alter is the most popular justifier of parasitic ethics in the world. And I have learned a great deal from him. But , it turns out that like rothbard, he’s just wrong. The ghetto was a state within a state, acted like a state. And rothbard’s ethics are those of exchange between states, not polities. The irony of that statement is palpable.
-
Justifying Parasitism: Walter Block’s Advocacy Of Ghetto Ethics
[T]urns out he’s mostly wrong. Only chance of future funding streams, is to abandon parasitic ethics. Rothbard’s critique of the state is priceless, and his history is almost as good. But his choice to try to base liberty on the ethics of the ghetto, rather than the ethics of the aristocratic egalitarian polity did the movement more damage than all his other works did good. It’s non-logical, it’s ahistorical, and it’s a demonstrated failure. [W]alter is the most popular justifier of parasitic ethics in the world. And I have learned a great deal from him. But , it turns out that like rothbard, he’s just wrong. The ghetto was a state within a state, acted like a state. And rothbard’s ethics are those of exchange between states, not polities. The irony of that statement is palpable.
-
Crusoe Economics As The Non-Logic Of The Ghetto
[I] suppose I can’t say this enough,[callout]Crusoe ethics aren’t ethical at all. They’re another form of obscurantist fraud that white people seem to just soak up like every other form of pseudoscience: Marxism, Socialism, Freudianism, Feminism, Cantor’s infinities, and Postmodernism.[/callout] but Crusoe economics is useful for the analysis of economics between states, but is entirely useless for the deduction of the properties of a social order. It should be obvious by now that Crusoe’s island is an analogy to the medieval ghetto, of a state within a state. The sea constructs the borders and walls of the ghetto. Crusoe ethics aren’t ethical at all. They’re another form of obscurantist fraud that white people seem to just soak up like every other form of pseudoscience: Marxism, Socialism, Freudianism, Feminism, Cantor’s infinities, and Postmodernism. Only white people can be this stupid.
-
Crusoe Economics As The Non-Logic Of The Ghetto
[I] suppose I can’t say this enough,[callout]Crusoe ethics aren’t ethical at all. They’re another form of obscurantist fraud that white people seem to just soak up like every other form of pseudoscience: Marxism, Socialism, Freudianism, Feminism, Cantor’s infinities, and Postmodernism.[/callout] but Crusoe economics is useful for the analysis of economics between states, but is entirely useless for the deduction of the properties of a social order. It should be obvious by now that Crusoe’s island is an analogy to the medieval ghetto, of a state within a state. The sea constructs the borders and walls of the ghetto. Crusoe ethics aren’t ethical at all. They’re another form of obscurantist fraud that white people seem to just soak up like every other form of pseudoscience: Marxism, Socialism, Freudianism, Feminism, Cantor’s infinities, and Postmodernism. Only white people can be this stupid.
-
Definition: "Ghetto Ethics"
[G]hetto Ethics: quite literally, the ethics of the medieval urban ghetto. As a ‘state within a state’ residents of the ghetto can conduct exchange as if they are state actors by relying upon high trust exchange in-group, while using low trust exchange out-group. However, in any polity, each of us cannot act as a ‘state’ by applying low trust with some and high trust with others because the net result is a near universally low trust society for the vast majority. In such an environment demand for the state and its interventions as a proxy for trust remains high, since low trust is by definition the use of cunning and deception to obtain discounts and premiums that the opposite party would not tolerate willingly. In other words, low trust ethics are parasitic, and impose high transaction costs on the population. [T]he underlying point I’m making is the absurdity of using the model of a state within a state to advocate for a stateless society. In that lens the entire rothbardian project is… well, absurdly illogical. Laughable even. Aristocratic egalitarianism (the protestant ethic) suppresses all cheating such that demand for the state is low because transaction costs and conflicts are minimized, while the velocity of production and exchange is high.