PART 1: AWARENESS, INFLUENCE, INCENTIVE AND COERCION SPECTRUM OF INFLUENCE (a) Ignorance – none (b) Awareness – speech (c) Influence – speech (d) Incentive – exchange (e) Coercion – violence (f) Enslavement – perpetual violence INCENTIVES Incentives are factors that motivate and influence the actions of individuals. Something that an influencer can use to provide a motive for a person to choose a particular course of action. Organized cooperative activities in a social setting — such as cooperation for the purpose of economic production — depends upon each of the participants having some sort of incentive to behave in the required cooperative fashion. Different societies (and even different organizations within the same society) vary considerably in the nature of the incentive systems upon which they characteristically rely to organize their common projects. — from Johnson (with edits) I. PERSONAL CATEGORIES OF INCENTIVES (Johnson) ——————————————– Incentives may be classified according to a number of different schemes, but one of the more useful classifications subdivides incentives into three general types: MORAL INCENTIVES, COERCIVE INCENTIVES and REMUNERATIVE INCENTIVES. A person has a COERCIVE INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way when it has been made known to him that failure to do so will result in some form of physical aggression being directed at him by other members of the collectivity in the form of inflicting pain or physical harm on him or his loved ones, depriving him of his freedom of movement, or perhaps confiscating or destroying his treasured possessions. A person has a MORAL INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way when he has been taught to believe that it is the “right” or “proper” or “admirable” thing to do. If he behaves as others expect him to, he may expect the approval or even the admiration of the other members of the collectivity and enjoy an enhanced sense of acceptance or self-esteem. If he behaves improperly, he may expect verbal expressions of condemnation, scorn, ridicule or even ostracism from the collectivity, and he may experience unpleasant feelings of guilt, shame or self-condemnation. A person has a REMUNERATIVE INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way if it has been made known to him that doing so will result in some form of material reward he will not otherwise receive. If he behaves as desired, he will receive some specified amount of a valuable good or service (or money with which he can purchase whatever he wishes) in exchange. All known societies employ all three sorts of incentives to at least some degree in order to evoke from its members the necessary degree of cooperation for the society to survive and flourish. However, different societies differ radically in the relative proportions of these different kinds of incentives used within their characteristic mix of incentives. II. POLITICAL: THREE COERCIVE TECHNOLOGIES (Doolittle) ————————————————- The Three Coercive Technologies. 1) FORCE: Tool: Physical Coercion Benefit: Avoidance Benefit Strategic use: Rapid but expensive. “Seize opportunities quickly with a concentrated effort.” 2) WORDS: Tool: Verbal, Moral Coercion Benefit: Ostracization/Inclusion, and Insurance benefit Strategic Use: slow, but inexpensive. “Wait for opportunity by accumulating consensus.” 3) EXCHANGE: Remunerative Coercion With Material Benefit – Strategic use: efficient in cost and time, only if you have the resources. III. STRATEGIC: POWER / THREE TYPES OF POWER —————————————– Power is defined as possessing any of the various means by which to influence the probability of outcomes in a group or polity using one of THE THREE COERCIVE TECHNOLOGIES. Power is the ability to Influence, Coerce or Compel individuals or groups to act more according to one’s wishes than they would without the use of influence, coercion or compelling. There are only three forms of power possible: 1) Populist Power (Religion, Entertainment, Public Intellectuals) vs 2) Procedural Power: Political, Judicial, and Military Power (Soldiers, Judges and Politicians) vs 3) Economic Power (people with wealth either earned or gained through tax appropriation). It is possible and often preferable to combine all three forms of power in order to coerce people most effectively. Conversely, it is possible and preferable to create an institutional framework in politics that restricts the ability to combine different forms of power in an effort to constrain power.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Why Doesn't It Occur To Us That We Don't Need A Single, Monopoly Government?
I mean, why does that make sense? If the problem is, that each of us wants different distribution of property rights, then why cant we form organizations with different property rights? It’s not like courts don’t adjudicate by property rights anyway. They have to. Our disputes are over behavior in public, our ability to insulate ourselves from certain kinds of public behavior, and to choose to invest in family and relations, or individuals and the commons. Surely interpersonal disputes over property, and insurance disputes over our claims on one another through our government are not required to be the same. The only reason to have a single government, is so that you can oppress and steal. Since it’s not possible to cooperate without personal property rights, and the entire world has finally adopted that position, the question is only what is done with the proceeds of labor and exchange. How much do we get to keep? What is our ‘FEE’ for insurance by our government. But there isn’t really any reason you can’t join your own government, when government is not much more than an insurance company. The only reason for any monopoly is extort from people. That’s what monopolies do. Public OR private.
-
Why Doesn’t It Occur To Us That We Don’t Need A Single, Monopoly Government?
I mean, why does that make sense? If the problem is, that each of us wants different distribution of property rights, then why cant we form organizations with different property rights? It’s not like courts don’t adjudicate by property rights anyway. They have to. Our disputes are over behavior in public, our ability to insulate ourselves from certain kinds of public behavior, and to choose to invest in family and relations, or individuals and the commons. Surely interpersonal disputes over property, and insurance disputes over our claims on one another through our government are not required to be the same. The only reason to have a single government, is so that you can oppress and steal. Since it’s not possible to cooperate without personal property rights, and the entire world has finally adopted that position, the question is only what is done with the proceeds of labor and exchange. How much do we get to keep? What is our ‘FEE’ for insurance by our government. But there isn’t really any reason you can’t join your own government, when government is not much more than an insurance company. The only reason for any monopoly is extort from people. That’s what monopolies do. Public OR private.
-
Why Doesn't It Occur To Us That We Don't Need A Single, Monopoly Government?
I mean, why does that make sense? If the problem is, that each of us wants different distribution of property rights, then why cant we form organizations with different property rights? It’s not like courts don’t adjudicate by property rights anyway. They have to. Our disputes are over behavior in public, our ability to insulate ourselves from certain kinds of public behavior, and to choose to invest in family and relations, or individuals and the commons. Surely interpersonal disputes over property, and insurance disputes over our claims on one another through our government are not required to be the same. The only reason to have a single government, is so that you can oppress and steal. Since it’s not possible to cooperate without personal property rights, and the entire world has finally adopted that position, the question is only what is done with the proceeds of labor and exchange. How much do we get to keep? What is our ‘FEE’ for insurance by our government. But there isn’t really any reason you can’t join your own government, when government is not much more than an insurance company. The only reason for any monopoly is extort from people. That’s what monopolies do. Public OR private.
-
Why Doesn’t It Occur To Us That We Don’t Need A Single, Monopoly Government?
I mean, why does that make sense? If the problem is, that each of us wants different distribution of property rights, then why cant we form organizations with different property rights? It’s not like courts don’t adjudicate by property rights anyway. They have to. Our disputes are over behavior in public, our ability to insulate ourselves from certain kinds of public behavior, and to choose to invest in family and relations, or individuals and the commons. Surely interpersonal disputes over property, and insurance disputes over our claims on one another through our government are not required to be the same. The only reason to have a single government, is so that you can oppress and steal. Since it’s not possible to cooperate without personal property rights, and the entire world has finally adopted that position, the question is only what is done with the proceeds of labor and exchange. How much do we get to keep? What is our ‘FEE’ for insurance by our government. But there isn’t really any reason you can’t join your own government, when government is not much more than an insurance company. The only reason for any monopoly is extort from people. That’s what monopolies do. Public OR private.
-
The Female Arms Race Against Men: ‘how Many People Can I Rally’?
(draft)(sketch)(interesting idea) (REVISED) AGAINST ‘RALLYING’ and ‘SHAMING’. The anti-gun emotional-reaction by women is not rational or empirical, but instinctual. . The female strategy for controlling her reproduction is to rally others to her defense. A man with a weapon both intimidates her, and reduces the value of ‘others’. Any empirical argument she makes is justificationary, not scientific. Our moral intuitions are not rational. Some women are so solipsistic that they see a rapist behind every T-shirt and necktie. They have it backwards of course, as the evidence shows. The problem for women is that they have as hard a time suppressing their irrational emotions as we males have suppressing our physicality. There are higher consequences for our failure to suppress physicality, and we assumed that there are lower consequences for failure of women to suppress rallying. But we were WRONG. We have retained constraints on male physicality, and abandoned constraints on female solipsism and emotional control over rallying us via emotion. We have stopped ‘punishing women’ for improper rallying, but retained the punishment of men for improper physicality. This has allowed women to immorally use ‘rallying’ the same way men rally crowds with violence. But while violence may be destructive to property, women’s solipsistic uncontrolled emotions empower the minority of males to use the violence of the state, and to increase the extraction of rents and increase their free riding by coddling women. Women would have themselves feel free to rally. But we men unfree to resist rallying. Rallying in the form of the state. We evolved to take women seriously, in the sense that they are troubled by something we feel the need to fix it. But there are many things that they are not to be taken seriously about. There are many things that they should be actively suppressed about rallying for, out of their instinctual, visceral reactions rather than rational reactions. And this is one of them. Freedom, liberty, and safety, and the equality and demand for reason that comes from the use of arms, is to important to tolerate women’s inappropriate rallying. We must remember that women’s rallying IS A WEAPON. It evolved AS A WEAPON. It is possibly the cause for the origin of SPEECH: rallying. But female rallying is violence against us and it is a weapon, just as carrying a weapon is defense against RALLYING. Women marry the state and rally statists and fools. It is an arms race. And we cannot let them win. SHAMING Is an act of theft. RALLYING is an act of aggression. Never tolerate either from women. REQUIRE REASON not RALLYING or SHAMING.
-
The Female Arms Race Against Men: 'how Many People Can I Rally'?
(draft)(sketch)(interesting idea) (REVISED) AGAINST ‘RALLYING’ and ‘SHAMING’. The anti-gun emotional-reaction by women is not rational or empirical, but instinctual. . The female strategy for controlling her reproduction is to rally others to her defense. A man with a weapon both intimidates her, and reduces the value of ‘others’. Any empirical argument she makes is justificationary, not scientific. Our moral intuitions are not rational. Some women are so solipsistic that they see a rapist behind every T-shirt and necktie. They have it backwards of course, as the evidence shows. The problem for women is that they have as hard a time suppressing their irrational emotions as we males have suppressing our physicality. There are higher consequences for our failure to suppress physicality, and we assumed that there are lower consequences for failure of women to suppress rallying. But we were WRONG. We have retained constraints on male physicality, and abandoned constraints on female solipsism and emotional control over rallying us via emotion. We have stopped ‘punishing women’ for improper rallying, but retained the punishment of men for improper physicality. This has allowed women to immorally use ‘rallying’ the same way men rally crowds with violence. But while violence may be destructive to property, women’s solipsistic uncontrolled emotions empower the minority of males to use the violence of the state, and to increase the extraction of rents and increase their free riding by coddling women. Women would have themselves feel free to rally. But we men unfree to resist rallying. Rallying in the form of the state. We evolved to take women seriously, in the sense that they are troubled by something we feel the need to fix it. But there are many things that they are not to be taken seriously about. There are many things that they should be actively suppressed about rallying for, out of their instinctual, visceral reactions rather than rational reactions. And this is one of them. Freedom, liberty, and safety, and the equality and demand for reason that comes from the use of arms, is to important to tolerate women’s inappropriate rallying. We must remember that women’s rallying IS A WEAPON. It evolved AS A WEAPON. It is possibly the cause for the origin of SPEECH: rallying. But female rallying is violence against us and it is a weapon, just as carrying a weapon is defense against RALLYING. Women marry the state and rally statists and fools. It is an arms race. And we cannot let them win. SHAMING Is an act of theft. RALLYING is an act of aggression. Never tolerate either from women. REQUIRE REASON not RALLYING or SHAMING.
-
The Female Arms Race Against Men: ‘how Many People Can I Rally’?
(draft)(sketch)(interesting idea) (REVISED) AGAINST ‘RALLYING’ and ‘SHAMING’. The anti-gun emotional-reaction by women is not rational or empirical, but instinctual. . The female strategy for controlling her reproduction is to rally others to her defense. A man with a weapon both intimidates her, and reduces the value of ‘others’. Any empirical argument she makes is justificationary, not scientific. Our moral intuitions are not rational. Some women are so solipsistic that they see a rapist behind every T-shirt and necktie. They have it backwards of course, as the evidence shows. The problem for women is that they have as hard a time suppressing their irrational emotions as we males have suppressing our physicality. There are higher consequences for our failure to suppress physicality, and we assumed that there are lower consequences for failure of women to suppress rallying. But we were WRONG. We have retained constraints on male physicality, and abandoned constraints on female solipsism and emotional control over rallying us via emotion. We have stopped ‘punishing women’ for improper rallying, but retained the punishment of men for improper physicality. This has allowed women to immorally use ‘rallying’ the same way men rally crowds with violence. But while violence may be destructive to property, women’s solipsistic uncontrolled emotions empower the minority of males to use the violence of the state, and to increase the extraction of rents and increase their free riding by coddling women. Women would have themselves feel free to rally. But we men unfree to resist rallying. Rallying in the form of the state. We evolved to take women seriously, in the sense that they are troubled by something we feel the need to fix it. But there are many things that they are not to be taken seriously about. There are many things that they should be actively suppressed about rallying for, out of their instinctual, visceral reactions rather than rational reactions. And this is one of them. Freedom, liberty, and safety, and the equality and demand for reason that comes from the use of arms, is to important to tolerate women’s inappropriate rallying. We must remember that women’s rallying IS A WEAPON. It evolved AS A WEAPON. It is possibly the cause for the origin of SPEECH: rallying. But female rallying is violence against us and it is a weapon, just as carrying a weapon is defense against RALLYING. Women marry the state and rally statists and fools. It is an arms race. And we cannot let them win. SHAMING Is an act of theft. RALLYING is an act of aggression. Never tolerate either from women. REQUIRE REASON not RALLYING or SHAMING.
-
The Female Arms Race Against Men: 'how Many People Can I Rally'?
(draft)(sketch)(interesting idea) (REVISED) AGAINST ‘RALLYING’ and ‘SHAMING’. The anti-gun emotional-reaction by women is not rational or empirical, but instinctual. . The female strategy for controlling her reproduction is to rally others to her defense. A man with a weapon both intimidates her, and reduces the value of ‘others’. Any empirical argument she makes is justificationary, not scientific. Our moral intuitions are not rational. Some women are so solipsistic that they see a rapist behind every T-shirt and necktie. They have it backwards of course, as the evidence shows. The problem for women is that they have as hard a time suppressing their irrational emotions as we males have suppressing our physicality. There are higher consequences for our failure to suppress physicality, and we assumed that there are lower consequences for failure of women to suppress rallying. But we were WRONG. We have retained constraints on male physicality, and abandoned constraints on female solipsism and emotional control over rallying us via emotion. We have stopped ‘punishing women’ for improper rallying, but retained the punishment of men for improper physicality. This has allowed women to immorally use ‘rallying’ the same way men rally crowds with violence. But while violence may be destructive to property, women’s solipsistic uncontrolled emotions empower the minority of males to use the violence of the state, and to increase the extraction of rents and increase their free riding by coddling women. Women would have themselves feel free to rally. But we men unfree to resist rallying. Rallying in the form of the state. We evolved to take women seriously, in the sense that they are troubled by something we feel the need to fix it. But there are many things that they are not to be taken seriously about. There are many things that they should be actively suppressed about rallying for, out of their instinctual, visceral reactions rather than rational reactions. And this is one of them. Freedom, liberty, and safety, and the equality and demand for reason that comes from the use of arms, is to important to tolerate women’s inappropriate rallying. We must remember that women’s rallying IS A WEAPON. It evolved AS A WEAPON. It is possibly the cause for the origin of SPEECH: rallying. But female rallying is violence against us and it is a weapon, just as carrying a weapon is defense against RALLYING. Women marry the state and rally statists and fools. It is an arms race. And we cannot let them win. SHAMING Is an act of theft. RALLYING is an act of aggression. Never tolerate either from women. REQUIRE REASON not RALLYING or SHAMING.
-
The Mythology Of The Enlightenment
The enlightenment mythos was almost as damaging was christianity. The greatest tragedy in human history may have been the christianization of Europe. The empirical side of the enlightenment was desperately needed to escape jewish mysticism that held us in ignorance for a millennia. Equality under the law, was important for the spread of commerce. But, just as moving people from christianity’s mysticism via Darwin was, let’s say … incomplete, it is very hard to move people from equality of property rights, equality under the law, and the equality of family interests, to what the socialists accomplished, which was equality of opportunity, material equality, inequality under the law, eradication of the common law by legislative law, and the destruction of the nuclear and absolute nuclear family in pursuit of ‘individualism’. We have a very hard time overturning this mythos. This mythos is even rampant in libertarianism. Libertarians are just as enamored of the fallacy of equality as are socialists. Libertarians want to retain meritocracy, sure. But most of us assume the same naive belief that if others ‘only understood’ they would adopt our system of values. But that’s just demonstrably false, both logically, praxeologically, and empirically. The majority of the world detests property rights and individualism.