When I went to Mises for the Austrian Scholars Conference the first time, I was struck dumb; first, by the incredible genius of the economic calculation argument, second by hoppe’s solution to the problem of institutions… But then equally by the failure to see that that BOTH Hayek and Mises were very close but wrong; the failure to grasp the importance of Popper’s contribution; the failure to grasp that no, the calculation issue was not ‘complete’. I realized something was wrong with Rothbard fairly quickly. It took me a few years to understand what Mises had done wrong with Praxeology, and only recently how to solve it completely. Hoppe was right about just about everything, but still had both Rothbard’s and Mises’ errors. But even so, he’d managed to get it all right anyway. Which, to me, is an even greater statement of his brilliance. Although, I’m still frustrated by his fascination with Argumentation. But it is this emphasis on experience and morality and preference instead of calculation that is everyone’s distraction. ( A topic that needs some reflection and exposition. And so I’ll return to it.) COMPUTER SCIENTISTS AND REFORMATION So strange. You know, there is this strange anti-computer-science bias in academia. But since the majority of intellectual revolution has come out of Mencius’ application of Austrian thought to conservatism, and my application of Austrian thought to libertarianism, while political science is fascinated by democracy, philosophy still squandering in the artifice of metaphysical pseudo-rationality, and mainstream economics is fascinated by growth and efficiency, and the left (literature) with obscurantism, pseudo-science, equality, diversity, and central control. And since, computer science is the only discipline that intersects between theoretical constructs and human interaction directly, I kind of think that, empirically speaking, computer science has more right than math, and certainly more right than economics. And political science and social science don’t even register signal above noise. Economics is a process of deduction from aggregation. Computer science is atomistic by its nature. It’s not deduction. It’s calculation. And therein lies an amazing difference in perception. We do not HAVE the economic data to tell us about human behavior at the level of atomicity we do with computers that interact with people on a daily basis. This teaches you about the hubris we must avoid when interacting with human beings. Math is platonic. Economics is idealistic. Computer science understands ‘ignorance, bias, incentives, and the limits of calculation’. Which is probably why we solved the political problem and the other groups didn’t.
Source: Original Site Post
-
(CORE) Propertarianism : Uniting Hoppe And Hayek
“Hayek’s work composes a system of ideas, fully as ambitious as the systems of Mill and Marx, but far less vulnerable to criticism than theirs because it is grounded on a philosophically defensible view of the scope and limits of human reason. ” –John N. Gray, in Hayek on Liberty (1984), Preface, p. ix COMMENT I originally thought I was trying to reconcile Hayek and Mises — at least, that’s what I remember saying to Walter Block — but really, it turns out, that it’s Mises (calculation), Hoppe (institutions), Rothbard (property as calculation) and Hayek (limits of reason) that needed uniting. If you stop for a moment, long enough to grasp that we do not need to JUSTIFY libertarianism (philosophy) as much as simply UNDERSTAND human moral behavior (science), then the question is not what we should choose to believe or prefer to believe, but only what institutions compensate for the deficiencies in our ability to cooperate because of fragmentary knowledge, AND cognitive and moral biases. The result is a libertarian bias in the formation all institutions. The problem is not ‘what we should do’ but ‘what can we not do’ without institutions to assist us in cooperating where we cannot cooperate without them. Where cooperation means to cooperate with people we do not and cannot know on means of achieving multiplicative ends, many of which are in conflict, and all of which represent our individual reproductive strategies. It’s common for us to discuss Capital in all its forms: Financial, Physical, Institutional, Human and Social. But, I don’t like the term ‘social capital’ for a lot of reasons. Not the least of which is that the term ‘social’ is heavily loaded. But most importantly, because for the female, collectively-biased mind, ‘social’ implies ‘agreement and consent’. Whereas, my preferred term, “informal institutions” consisting of manners, ethics, morals, habits, traditions, rituals, myths, metaphysical biases, is a largely involuntary, non-consensual, habituated rules, reduced to intuitions, many of which we may not even be aware of – and most which we cannot distinguish from biological and genetic instinct. It’s common for us to discuss Capital in all its forms: 1) Human Capital, 2) Informal Institutional Capital, 3) Intellectual Capital, 4) Formal institutional Capital, 5) Physical Capital, 6) Financial Capital, 7) Geographic Capital. And to do so in that order, as a sequence from the human being, to physical space, and each dependent upon its priors. A SYSTEM OF IDEAS Extending property to the full suite of categories which human beings demonstrate that they treat as property, we are able to reconcile the Austro-libertarian program and rescue it from its past errors. We can take calculation and praxeology from mises, and complete praxeology as a biologically based science of incentives, remove deduction from it, but retain praxeology’s ability to test any incentive given the similarity of our sensitivity to incentives. We can take Hayek and show that he simply did not make the connection between the various categories of property and his insights into the limits of information and knowledge. We are able to reduce to very compact form, the theory of human cooperation, as non-arbitrary, entirely rational pursuit of our reproductive strategy in whatever organization we are members of. COMPACTLY STATED To unite these thinkers into ratio-scientific form requires only the following limited steps: 0) Start with private property, and voluntary exchange 1) Add remaining categories of property 2) Add ethical requirement for symmetry and warranty 3) Add ethical requirement against transfer by externality 4) Add ethical requirement for operational language 5) Add ethical requirement for ‘calculability’ (retention of relation) 6) Add institutional government by contract not law. The rest is a set of tactics that require only different levels of technology to achieve the same result. THE REASON FOR MORAL DIVERSITY IS THE EXPRESSION OF REPRODUCTIVE INDIVIDUALISM UNDER POST INDUSTRIALISM’S WEALTH People pursue their economic and reproductive interests, but only as long as there is an incentive and a means to do so. We are not equal in our reproductive value – which is obvious. Just as we are not equal in our economic value – value to each other. The diversity of moral biases increases with the diversity of the reproductive structure. If we all exist in nuclear families in one group, and all exist in tribes in another, then the moral code that he nuclear families operate between all members of all groups, will differ from the bifurcated morally of the tribal group. Because the tribal group treats all non-family as another ‘state’ just as the nuclear families treat all individuals as belonging to their family. This creates an asymmetry of morals, since at all times, both sides attempt to keep all rewards in their families. Except that the nuclear family system keeps rewards universally, and the tribal family does not. As such the nuclear family is easy prey to the immorality of the tribal family. Furthermore, under matrilinealism, women trade sex and affection for calories, where as under paternalism men trade calories and security for sex and care-taking using property. In each system there is a bias in reproductive control for each gender. Under the nuclear, traditional, and extended families, our reproductive male and female strategies are politically homogenized since what is politically good for one is good for the other. But under the dissolution of the family into single parenthood, and roaming males, reproductive interests are polarized between each group. And that is what we see in modern democracy, with the only difference that military prowess (power) gives nations a more masculine character, and lack of it gives nations are more feminine character. SCOPE AND SIMPLICITY As I write this I’m reminded that it does take an entire book to cover an ethical topic of this breadth. But comforted slightly that once the breadth is understood as a system, it is possible to reduce it to a compact set of rules or laws, and therefore, both fitting the criteria of explanatory power, and the requirement that society consist of very simple, basic rules, comprehensible to anyone. And since propertarianism is the codification of instinctual biology in verbal form using property as the means of commensurability, then it is both possible for humans to universally sense, perceive, and comprehend those simple basic additions – additions which in effect, ask us to extend and warrantee all exchanges, verbal and material, to all human beings, as if they were members of our traditional family. And as such, create a family in practice despite what are a multitude of families with different preferences, needs, means and ends. Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev 2013
-
(CORE) Propertarianism : Uniting Hoppe And Hayek
“Hayek’s work composes a system of ideas, fully as ambitious as the systems of Mill and Marx, but far less vulnerable to criticism than theirs because it is grounded on a philosophically defensible view of the scope and limits of human reason. ” –John N. Gray, in Hayek on Liberty (1984), Preface, p. ix COMMENT I originally thought I was trying to reconcile Hayek and Mises — at least, that’s what I remember saying to Walter Block — but really, it turns out, that it’s Mises (calculation), Hoppe (institutions), Rothbard (property as calculation) and Hayek (limits of reason) that needed uniting. If you stop for a moment, long enough to grasp that we do not need to JUSTIFY libertarianism (philosophy) as much as simply UNDERSTAND human moral behavior (science), then the question is not what we should choose to believe or prefer to believe, but only what institutions compensate for the deficiencies in our ability to cooperate because of fragmentary knowledge, AND cognitive and moral biases. The result is a libertarian bias in the formation all institutions. The problem is not ‘what we should do’ but ‘what can we not do’ without institutions to assist us in cooperating where we cannot cooperate without them. Where cooperation means to cooperate with people we do not and cannot know on means of achieving multiplicative ends, many of which are in conflict, and all of which represent our individual reproductive strategies. It’s common for us to discuss Capital in all its forms: Financial, Physical, Institutional, Human and Social. But, I don’t like the term ‘social capital’ for a lot of reasons. Not the least of which is that the term ‘social’ is heavily loaded. But most importantly, because for the female, collectively-biased mind, ‘social’ implies ‘agreement and consent’. Whereas, my preferred term, “informal institutions” consisting of manners, ethics, morals, habits, traditions, rituals, myths, metaphysical biases, is a largely involuntary, non-consensual, habituated rules, reduced to intuitions, many of which we may not even be aware of – and most which we cannot distinguish from biological and genetic instinct. It’s common for us to discuss Capital in all its forms: 1) Human Capital, 2) Informal Institutional Capital, 3) Intellectual Capital, 4) Formal institutional Capital, 5) Physical Capital, 6) Financial Capital, 7) Geographic Capital. And to do so in that order, as a sequence from the human being, to physical space, and each dependent upon its priors. A SYSTEM OF IDEAS Extending property to the full suite of categories which human beings demonstrate that they treat as property, we are able to reconcile the Austro-libertarian program and rescue it from its past errors. We can take calculation and praxeology from mises, and complete praxeology as a biologically based science of incentives, remove deduction from it, but retain praxeology’s ability to test any incentive given the similarity of our sensitivity to incentives. We can take Hayek and show that he simply did not make the connection between the various categories of property and his insights into the limits of information and knowledge. We are able to reduce to very compact form, the theory of human cooperation, as non-arbitrary, entirely rational pursuit of our reproductive strategy in whatever organization we are members of. COMPACTLY STATED To unite these thinkers into ratio-scientific form requires only the following limited steps: 0) Start with private property, and voluntary exchange 1) Add remaining categories of property 2) Add ethical requirement for symmetry and warranty 3) Add ethical requirement against transfer by externality 4) Add ethical requirement for operational language 5) Add ethical requirement for ‘calculability’ (retention of relation) 6) Add institutional government by contract not law. The rest is a set of tactics that require only different levels of technology to achieve the same result. THE REASON FOR MORAL DIVERSITY IS THE EXPRESSION OF REPRODUCTIVE INDIVIDUALISM UNDER POST INDUSTRIALISM’S WEALTH People pursue their economic and reproductive interests, but only as long as there is an incentive and a means to do so. We are not equal in our reproductive value – which is obvious. Just as we are not equal in our economic value – value to each other. The diversity of moral biases increases with the diversity of the reproductive structure. If we all exist in nuclear families in one group, and all exist in tribes in another, then the moral code that he nuclear families operate between all members of all groups, will differ from the bifurcated morally of the tribal group. Because the tribal group treats all non-family as another ‘state’ just as the nuclear families treat all individuals as belonging to their family. This creates an asymmetry of morals, since at all times, both sides attempt to keep all rewards in their families. Except that the nuclear family system keeps rewards universally, and the tribal family does not. As such the nuclear family is easy prey to the immorality of the tribal family. Furthermore, under matrilinealism, women trade sex and affection for calories, where as under paternalism men trade calories and security for sex and care-taking using property. In each system there is a bias in reproductive control for each gender. Under the nuclear, traditional, and extended families, our reproductive male and female strategies are politically homogenized since what is politically good for one is good for the other. But under the dissolution of the family into single parenthood, and roaming males, reproductive interests are polarized between each group. And that is what we see in modern democracy, with the only difference that military prowess (power) gives nations a more masculine character, and lack of it gives nations are more feminine character. SCOPE AND SIMPLICITY As I write this I’m reminded that it does take an entire book to cover an ethical topic of this breadth. But comforted slightly that once the breadth is understood as a system, it is possible to reduce it to a compact set of rules or laws, and therefore, both fitting the criteria of explanatory power, and the requirement that society consist of very simple, basic rules, comprehensible to anyone. And since propertarianism is the codification of instinctual biology in verbal form using property as the means of commensurability, then it is both possible for humans to universally sense, perceive, and comprehend those simple basic additions – additions which in effect, ask us to extend and warrantee all exchanges, verbal and material, to all human beings, as if they were members of our traditional family. And as such, create a family in practice despite what are a multitude of families with different preferences, needs, means and ends. Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev 2013
-
One Thousand Years Of The Anglo Saxon Absolute Nuclear Family
“The English are descended from the Germanic conquerors who brought to England the ‘integrated nuclear family,’ in which nuclear families formed separate households, but stayed close to their relatives for mutual cooperation and defense. These people were illiterate, so we have no written records from those times, and we cannot know precisely how they organized their family life. But what we do know for sure is that over time the original Germanic family type developed into the ‘Absolute Nuclear Family,’ or ‘ANF,’ which we have today. It appears that the family type we have now has existed for about a thousand years.” — America 3.0. p51
-
One Thousand Years Of The Anglo Saxon Absolute Nuclear Family
“The English are descended from the Germanic conquerors who brought to England the ‘integrated nuclear family,’ in which nuclear families formed separate households, but stayed close to their relatives for mutual cooperation and defense. These people were illiterate, so we have no written records from those times, and we cannot know precisely how they organized their family life. But what we do know for sure is that over time the original Germanic family type developed into the ‘Absolute Nuclear Family,’ or ‘ANF,’ which we have today. It appears that the family type we have now has existed for about a thousand years.” — America 3.0. p51
-
Almost Everything You Need To Know About American Elections
THE WAR AGAINST WHITE MARRIED PEOPLE Add gender and marital status, and thats all you need to understand. “93% of blacks, 70% of Latinos, 60% of those under 30, and 62% of single people, voted for Obama. And white married couples over 30 years of age voted for Romney. Not much else matters.” –Dick Morris
-
Almost Everything You Need To Know About American Elections
THE WAR AGAINST WHITE MARRIED PEOPLE Add gender and marital status, and thats all you need to understand. “93% of blacks, 70% of Latinos, 60% of those under 30, and 62% of single people, voted for Obama. And white married couples over 30 years of age voted for Romney. Not much else matters.” –Dick Morris
-
The Cognitive Biases In The Empirical Fields
THE COGNITIVE BIASES OF THE EMPIRICAL FIELDS? (question) (see The Smart Fraction Theory of IQ and the Wealth of Nations at www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com) What is the difference in the the cognitive biases of the different disciplines? 1) Engineering and engineers 2) Computer science and computer scientists, 3) Economics and economists (statistics) 4) Physics and physicists 5) Mathematics and mathematicians? How would you stack-rank these five by: i) The weight given to understanding of human hubris vs human rationality? ii) The use of obscurant versus operational language iii) The use of platonist versus naturalistic language. iv) The requirement that people adapt to new knowledge, versus adapt technology to suit the needs and wants of people? v) The tendency to favor statist versus libertarian solutions? ON IQ Now, we have to understand some variations in the data. Mostly it’s a hierarchy of IQ. But Economists usually skew lower than the other disciplines because a) they are paid less, and b) the criteria for what is called an economics degree varies a lot. (It is very hard to make less than 100K as a computer scientist. It is very easy to make 150K. And not difficult to make 200K.) Given the damned rigor of the discipline I find this sort of thing interesting. DISCLAIMER I am educated as a fine artist, in Art Theory. (The philosophy of art and art history). Essentially as an art critic. Art just isn’t generally good enough to critique any more. Although the art-craft movement is still creative and beautiful. The movie business is the great sucking sound for artistic talent in America. And art has become a lower middle class occupation with an upper proletarian work force. It is not in the least bit aristocratic.
-
The Cognitive Biases In The Empirical Fields
THE COGNITIVE BIASES OF THE EMPIRICAL FIELDS? (question) (see The Smart Fraction Theory of IQ and the Wealth of Nations at www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com) What is the difference in the the cognitive biases of the different disciplines? 1) Engineering and engineers 2) Computer science and computer scientists, 3) Economics and economists (statistics) 4) Physics and physicists 5) Mathematics and mathematicians? How would you stack-rank these five by: i) The weight given to understanding of human hubris vs human rationality? ii) The use of obscurant versus operational language iii) The use of platonist versus naturalistic language. iv) The requirement that people adapt to new knowledge, versus adapt technology to suit the needs and wants of people? v) The tendency to favor statist versus libertarian solutions? ON IQ Now, we have to understand some variations in the data. Mostly it’s a hierarchy of IQ. But Economists usually skew lower than the other disciplines because a) they are paid less, and b) the criteria for what is called an economics degree varies a lot. (It is very hard to make less than 100K as a computer scientist. It is very easy to make 150K. And not difficult to make 200K.) Given the damned rigor of the discipline I find this sort of thing interesting. DISCLAIMER I am educated as a fine artist, in Art Theory. (The philosophy of art and art history). Essentially as an art critic. Art just isn’t generally good enough to critique any more. Although the art-craft movement is still creative and beautiful. The movie business is the great sucking sound for artistic talent in America. And art has become a lower middle class occupation with an upper proletarian work force. It is not in the least bit aristocratic.
-
A Question Of Libertarian Terminology
(Freedom vs Liberty) Is it just my own selection bias in action, or has the term FREEDOM been sufficiently appropriated as to mean “Positive Freedom and liberty” and LIBERTY such that it currently means “Negative Freedom and liberty”? It’s too bad we LIBERTARIANS don’t have such energetic literary activists who can put together a campaign to ‘reconstruct’ the meanings of liberty and freedom the way the marxists have, and by doing so appropriated our terminology: via editing, shaming and critique. LIBERTY IS DETERMINED BY 1) The available means of production. 2) The impact of the means of production on reproduction (family) 3) The allocation of property rights between individual, family and commons to suit production and reproduction. 4) The Freedoms and Duties we grant each other according to those rights, and the flexibility of altering those relations in response to changes in the means of production. 5) The degree of rent-seeking (corruption) by leaders of the hierarchy or network of organizations that resolve conflicts and facilitate investments (ownership or government). 6) The degree of contribution by individuals willingly paid to the extended family (commons) in exchange for status which increases their opportunities for mating, experience, and opportunity. THE STATUS ECONOMY – THE OTHER INVOLUNTARY APPROPRIATION (Government members obtain status as well as compensation and earners do not obtain status OR compensation. The need is to create status signals such that the earners are willing to contribute to the commons of their extended family. If instead, high tax payers were publicly identified and given political voice, if not political vote, then the world would be a very different place. But politicians fear this fact. And to some degree, the corrupt on both sizes are protected by their anonymity. Imagine a state of the union meeting where the top 500 taxpayers instead of 500 elected politicians, were required to give their opinions on the state of the union. )
