(Sketch) Eliminate the state sponsored corporation. A corporation is a partnership whose members are insured by a monopoly insurer insulated from competition: the state. All associations are, and only can be, partnerships. Restore right of suit for any and all involuntary transfers, outside of morally sanctioned competition, against any and all individuals within the partnership and their agents. Require insurance bonds be purchased by the partnership. Require all employees be bonded if they communicate with or act on behalf of, customers. (The incentives will favor truth telling and allocate money and status to truth-tellers.) Stock certificates shall not represent ownership, but a purchase of contractual rights to dividends that are guaranteed by the assets in the event of liquidation or sale. Control then shall not be democratic, but contractual.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Slowly The Dark Enlightenment Spreads
SLOWLY THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT SPREADS Another social science academic concludes that there is little there there. Writing in 1942, the Oxford Professor of Metaphysics, RG Collingwood, said that dismissing academic discussion for insignificant speech is like “scolding little girls for giving dolls’ tea-parties with empty cups and little boys for playing with wooden swords.” Academic discussions, he added, “belong to the world of make-believe.” Collingwood was specifically talking about my field, political philosophy, as it is done in universities. Reflecting on his words over the last year, I’ve begun to realise how right he was. –Craig Newmark, Newmark’s Door. COMMENT ————- The fallacy of common interest. The fallacy of common ends. The necessity of common means of achieving opposing interests and ends. The enlightenment vision of man was false. It is not mysterious that deliberation over public choice is nonsense, if it is predicated on nonsensical assumptions about the nature of man. The market, noy politics, is the only mechanism for cooperating peacefully on means despite conflicting and irreconcilable ends. WELCOM BACK FROM THE MATRIX INTO THE REAL WORLD. Aristocracy.
-
Slowly The Dark Enlightenment Spreads
SLOWLY THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT SPREADS Another social science academic concludes that there is little there there. Writing in 1942, the Oxford Professor of Metaphysics, RG Collingwood, said that dismissing academic discussion for insignificant speech is like “scolding little girls for giving dolls’ tea-parties with empty cups and little boys for playing with wooden swords.” Academic discussions, he added, “belong to the world of make-believe.” Collingwood was specifically talking about my field, political philosophy, as it is done in universities. Reflecting on his words over the last year, I’ve begun to realise how right he was. –Craig Newmark, Newmark’s Door. COMMENT ————- The fallacy of common interest. The fallacy of common ends. The necessity of common means of achieving opposing interests and ends. The enlightenment vision of man was false. It is not mysterious that deliberation over public choice is nonsense, if it is predicated on nonsensical assumptions about the nature of man. The market, noy politics, is the only mechanism for cooperating peacefully on means despite conflicting and irreconcilable ends. WELCOM BACK FROM THE MATRIX INTO THE REAL WORLD. Aristocracy.
-
Ruining An Austrian's Day
RUINING AN AUSTRIAN’S DAY “Man must act” is of course, true, but it is an incomplete sentence. “Man must act to serve his interests” is the full sentence. And completing the sentence demonstrates it’s irrelevance. The meaningful problem is that “Man must voluntarily cooperate.” And that is where the problem becomes difficult. Because man must actually “calculate and choose to outwit the current course of events”. We call Reductio ad absurdum arguments rhetorical fallacies for a reason. ANy act of simplification or categorization is necessarily eliminative. ” One must be careful not to eliminate the causal properties of that which is required for later deduction from first principles. It’s a cute trick of obscurant logic. And the genius is in constructing the (false) obscurant logic. Not in what we can deduce from it. Human cooperation requires the voluntary payment of vast opportunity costs, for which they expect something in return. No activity is conducted for altruistic reasons. All activity is conducted in exchange for something. Most of it for insurance on inclusion in future opportunity. Which Mises ignores and Rothbard intentionally avoids. It’s possible to fix Mises’ Praxeology and Rothbard’s ethics, but only by restoring the recognition of those costs, and the consequential impact those costs have on the program of ethics we libertarians rely upon. Fixing those errors then, returns LIBERTY TO ARISTOCRACY, truth and clarity, and rescues it from the ghetto of obscurant, deceptive language meant intentionally to mislead.
-
Ruining An Austrian’s Day
RUINING AN AUSTRIAN’S DAY “Man must act” is of course, true, but it is an incomplete sentence. “Man must act to serve his interests” is the full sentence. And completing the sentence demonstrates it’s irrelevance. The meaningful problem is that “Man must voluntarily cooperate.” And that is where the problem becomes difficult. Because man must actually “calculate and choose to outwit the current course of events”. We call Reductio ad absurdum arguments rhetorical fallacies for a reason. ANy act of simplification or categorization is necessarily eliminative. ” One must be careful not to eliminate the causal properties of that which is required for later deduction from first principles. It’s a cute trick of obscurant logic. And the genius is in constructing the (false) obscurant logic. Not in what we can deduce from it. Human cooperation requires the voluntary payment of vast opportunity costs, for which they expect something in return. No activity is conducted for altruistic reasons. All activity is conducted in exchange for something. Most of it for insurance on inclusion in future opportunity. Which Mises ignores and Rothbard intentionally avoids. It’s possible to fix Mises’ Praxeology and Rothbard’s ethics, but only by restoring the recognition of those costs, and the consequential impact those costs have on the program of ethics we libertarians rely upon. Fixing those errors then, returns LIBERTY TO ARISTOCRACY, truth and clarity, and rescues it from the ghetto of obscurant, deceptive language meant intentionally to mislead.
-
Ruining An Austrian's Day
RUINING AN AUSTRIAN’S DAY “Man must act” is of course, true, but it is an incomplete sentence. “Man must act to serve his interests” is the full sentence. And completing the sentence demonstrates it’s irrelevance. The meaningful problem is that “Man must voluntarily cooperate.” And that is where the problem becomes difficult. Because man must actually “calculate and choose to outwit the current course of events”. We call Reductio ad absurdum arguments rhetorical fallacies for a reason. ANy act of simplification or categorization is necessarily eliminative. ” One must be careful not to eliminate the causal properties of that which is required for later deduction from first principles. It’s a cute trick of obscurant logic. And the genius is in constructing the (false) obscurant logic. Not in what we can deduce from it. Human cooperation requires the voluntary payment of vast opportunity costs, for which they expect something in return. No activity is conducted for altruistic reasons. All activity is conducted in exchange for something. Most of it for insurance on inclusion in future opportunity. Which Mises ignores and Rothbard intentionally avoids. It’s possible to fix Mises’ Praxeology and Rothbard’s ethics, but only by restoring the recognition of those costs, and the consequential impact those costs have on the program of ethics we libertarians rely upon. Fixing those errors then, returns LIBERTY TO ARISTOCRACY, truth and clarity, and rescues it from the ghetto of obscurant, deceptive language meant intentionally to mislead.
-
Ruining An Austrian’s Day
RUINING AN AUSTRIAN’S DAY “Man must act” is of course, true, but it is an incomplete sentence. “Man must act to serve his interests” is the full sentence. And completing the sentence demonstrates it’s irrelevance. The meaningful problem is that “Man must voluntarily cooperate.” And that is where the problem becomes difficult. Because man must actually “calculate and choose to outwit the current course of events”. We call Reductio ad absurdum arguments rhetorical fallacies for a reason. ANy act of simplification or categorization is necessarily eliminative. ” One must be careful not to eliminate the causal properties of that which is required for later deduction from first principles. It’s a cute trick of obscurant logic. And the genius is in constructing the (false) obscurant logic. Not in what we can deduce from it. Human cooperation requires the voluntary payment of vast opportunity costs, for which they expect something in return. No activity is conducted for altruistic reasons. All activity is conducted in exchange for something. Most of it for insurance on inclusion in future opportunity. Which Mises ignores and Rothbard intentionally avoids. It’s possible to fix Mises’ Praxeology and Rothbard’s ethics, but only by restoring the recognition of those costs, and the consequential impact those costs have on the program of ethics we libertarians rely upon. Fixing those errors then, returns LIBERTY TO ARISTOCRACY, truth and clarity, and rescues it from the ghetto of obscurant, deceptive language meant intentionally to mislead.
-
Deceptions
TRUE --------------------------- FALSE------ Operational Language............ Moral language Compensation.....................Shame, Moral Duty or Claim Voluntary Exchange...............Involuntary Transfer
-
Deceptions
TRUE --------------------------- FALSE------ Operational Language............ Moral language Compensation.....................Shame, Moral Duty or Claim Voluntary Exchange...............Involuntary Transfer
-
You've Got It Backwards : Aristocracy
Aristocracy CREATES property rights by forcibly demanding them of everyone he or she encounters, under the threat that he restricts his use of his WEALTH of VIOLENCE, only upon the condition that all others do so as well. It is not that the world desires property rights. Demonstrably that is false. What the world desires is to be taken care of and to consume, as a comfortable slave or farm animal. To be human, requires property. The only possible form of HUMANISM is ARISTOCRACY that demands by the threat of violence, property rights for all. Without property you are not human. You are only an animal, herded and shepherded like any other.