Theme: Civilization

  • Diedre McCloskey’s Close On The European Miracle – Just Close

    She’s close. McCloskey’s close. It’s actually, that MORAL ARGUMENTS by public intellectuals, changed the in-group instinctual bias AGAINST competition, from an immoral and unethical practice to a moral and ethical virtue because it became clear that despite our instincts, and despite the immorality of competition, it produces a virtuous cycle. THis change in moral codes, despite being contradictory to our instincts, succeeded. For that bias tot work however, requires the nuclear family and the individual to form the productive social unit, rather than the family, extended family, village or tribe. Cities, where people could go to seek opportunities, generated wealth from trade, and the movement of people from the moral structure of the farm, to the new moral structure of the city, allowed increasing numbers of people exit the moral constraints of the extended family, village and tribe and participate as individual economic units in the cities. The reason that this new morality became accepted varied from country to country. But in large part it was made possible by the growing middle class, and a change in policy. In Europe this policy was demonstrated by Ricardo and Smith, and less directly by Hume. The colonies, which were entirely mercantile and lacking nobility, provided a vehicle for creating new forms of ‘nobility’ and therefore purely meritocratic status signals. Governments, eager to increase tax revenue, altered legislation and policy to support this trend (some of it bad, like breaking the common law’s prohibition on pollution). The middle class, who had adopted this new counter-intuitive moral code, slowly accumulated enough political power economically and therefore politically displace the landed aristocracy. In the case of the USA, there never was such an aristocracy and church – at least not one that survived the revolution. In england it merely meant expansion of power of the house of commons. In France it meant the murder of the entire aristocratic class, and the end of french contribution to civilization. In germany it produced. first a reaction to its conquest by napoleon. and second, a reactionary movement, as a defense against future napoleon’s by uniting the german people. Germany found cultural balance in unity where france had failed and unleashed the terrors and where england had bent itself into even more rigid classes to accommodate that rise. This process, (as I argue in my upcoming book), allowed us to force all involuntary transfers in society INTO THE MARKET FOR COMPETITION and out law all other forms of involuntary transfer. THis arrangement was generally limited to the family. But since the family was reduced to the NUCLEAR family in europe, this by definition meant that pretty much all of society except for children was bound by the prohibition against all involuntary transfers except by competition in he market. This is the singular most important advancement in human moral systems since the Silver and Golden Rules were articulated: Do nothing to others you would not want done to you, and if possible, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. [pullquote]There is no name for the moral principle of forcing all involuntary transfers into the market for competition.[/pullquote] We could argue that it is the copper or platinum rule. But that would be trite. And I have no particular instinct for naming it other than, the rule of the moral exclusivity of competition. Anyway. That’s one part of what I’m working on. QUOTE: “According to McCloskey, our modern world was not the product of new markets and innovations, but rather the result of shifting opinions about them. During this time, talk of private property, commerce, and even the bourgeoisie itself radically altered, becoming far more approving and flying in the face of prejudices several millennia old. The wealth of nations, then, didn’t grow so dramatically because of economic factors: it grew because rhetoric about markets and free enterprise finally became enthusiastic and encouraging of their inherent dignity.”

  • THE ANSWER TO THE EUROPEAN MIRACLE She’s close. McCloskey’s close. It’s actually

    THE ANSWER TO THE EUROPEAN MIRACLE

    She’s close. McCloskey’s close.

    It’s actually, that MORAL ARGUMENTS by public intellectuals, changed the in-group instinctual bias AGAINST competition, from an immoral and unethical practice to a moral and ethical virtue because it became clear that despite our instincts, and despite the immorality of competition, it produces a virtuous cycle. THis change in moral codes, despite being contradictory to our instincts, succeeded. For that bias tot work however, requires the nuclear family and the individual to form the productive social unit, rather than the family, extended family, village or tribe.

    Cities, where people could go to seek opportunities, generated wealth from trade, and the movement of people from the moral structure of the farm, to the new moral structure of the city, allowed increasing numbers of people exit the moral constraints of the extended family, village and tribe and participate as individual economic units in the cities.

    The reason that this new morality became accepted varied from country to country. But in large part it was made possible by the growing middle class, and a change in policy. In Europe this policy was demonstrated by Ricardo and Smith, and less directly by hume. The colonies, which were entirely mercantile and lacking nobility, provided a vehicle for creating new forms of ‘nobility’ and therefore purely meritocratic status signals.

    Governments, eager to increase tax revenue, altered legislation and policy to support this trend (some of it bad, like breaking the common law’s prohibition on pollution). The middle class, who had adopted this new counter-intuitive moral code, slowly accumulated enough political power economically and therefore politically displace the landed aristocracy. In the case of the USA, there never was such an aristocracy and church – at least not one that survived the revolution. In england it merely meant expansion of power of the house of commons. In France it meant the murder of the entire aristocratic class, and the end of french contribution to civilization. In germany it produced. first a reaction to its conquest by napoleon. and second, a reactionary movement, as a defense against future napoleon’s by uniting the german people. Germany found cultural balance in unity where france had failed and unleashed the terrors and where england had bent itself into even more rigid classes to accommodate that rise.

    This process, (as I argue in my upcoming book), allowed us to force all involuntary transfers in society INTO THE MARKET FOR COMPETITION and out law all other forms of involuntary transfer. THis arrangement was generally limited to the family. But since the family was reduced to the NUCLEAR family in europe, this by definition meant that pretty much all of society except for children was bound by the prohibition against all involuntary transfers except by competition in he market.

    This is the singular most important advancement in human moral systems since the Silver and Golden Rules were articulated: Do nothing to others you would not want done to you, and if possible, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

    There is no name for the moral principle of forcing all involuntary transfers into the market for competition. We could argue that it is the copper or platinum rule. But that would be trite. And I have no particular instinct for naming it other than, the rule of the moral exclusivity of competition.

    Anyway. That’s one part of what I’m working on.

    QUOTE:

    “According to McCloskey, our modern world was not the product of new markets and innovations, but rather the result of shifting opinions about them. During this time, talk of private property, commerce, and even the bourgeoisie itself radically altered, becoming far more approving and flying in the face of prejudices several millennia old. The wealth of nations, then, didn’t grow so dramatically because of economic factors: it grew because rhetoric about markets and free enterprise finally became enthusiastic and encouraging of their inherent dignity.”


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-18 10:53:00 UTC

  • Why Do We Live In Nation States?

    Because Nation-States are constructed of genetically related, extended families and  extended tribes, with shared language, culture, mythology, rituals, values, status signals, where competition for political power is ‘in the family’ and will not disrupt the existing order.  Humans are notoriously antagonized by redistributions outside of their value-status system, and by disruptions to the existing order.  Our data so far suggests that small homogenous nation states whose members are highly related, are highly redistributive, and highly trusting of one another, and if combined with low corruption and good rule of law produce the ‘scandinavian model’.

    The general argument is that the only reason for large states is to fund warfare, and that appears to be true.  Larger states require higher authoritarianism and less freedom, and complex political contrivances in order to deny others power using both political and extra-political competition.

    Furthermore large states can borrow disproportionately and create extraordinary economic leverage, and as such can use trade policy to give populations a competitive advantage.

    But in general, small is beautiful so to speak, and we would be less able to make war and more happy and peaceful if we lived in either city states or nation states.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-do-we-live-in-nation-states

  • Why Do We Live In Nation States?

    Because Nation-States are constructed of genetically related, extended families and  extended tribes, with shared language, culture, mythology, rituals, values, status signals, where competition for political power is ‘in the family’ and will not disrupt the existing order.  Humans are notoriously antagonized by redistributions outside of their value-status system, and by disruptions to the existing order.  Our data so far suggests that small homogenous nation states whose members are highly related, are highly redistributive, and highly trusting of one another, and if combined with low corruption and good rule of law produce the ‘scandinavian model’.

    The general argument is that the only reason for large states is to fund warfare, and that appears to be true.  Larger states require higher authoritarianism and less freedom, and complex political contrivances in order to deny others power using both political and extra-political competition.

    Furthermore large states can borrow disproportionately and create extraordinary economic leverage, and as such can use trade policy to give populations a competitive advantage.

    But in general, small is beautiful so to speak, and we would be less able to make war and more happy and peaceful if we lived in either city states or nation states.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-do-we-live-in-nation-states

  • EMPIRES “A quarter of a millennium ago, intellectuals in Western Europe discover

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BFGW3H6/ref=tsm_1_fb_lkACCIDENTAL EMPIRES

    “A quarter of a millennium ago, intellectuals in Western Europe discovered that they had a problem. As problems went, theirs was not a bad one: they appeared to be taking over the world, but did not know why.” Ian Morris: The Measure of Civilization

    THE MEASURE OF CIVILIZATION

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Measure-of-Civilization-ebook/dp/B00BFGW3H6

    WHY THE WEST RULES FOR NOW

    http://www.amazon.com/Why-West-Rules-Now-ebook/dp/B003VTZSFY/

    Of course, I get down to: a) common law, b) reason and science bias c) individual property rights d) prohibition on inbreeding e) accounting

    ‘Cause without accounting, you can’t really do much in this world.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-13 04:46:00 UTC

  • Read Engels Again: But There Are Better Primary Sources and The Natural State Is Plastic

    Eh.. [G]ist is right. Primary sources are better. Our knowledge is better today. But we are shaking off centuries of bias about our natural state, only to discover that humans organize according to production units counterbalanced by the competition between male and female reproductive competition. Not much more to it than that. We have a lot more detail, but in the end, if our survival depends upon it, we alter our informal and formal institutions to support our economic (productive and consumptive) demands. Now, it’s certainly true that we often adopt BAD ways of doing things. And it’s certainly true that we resist adopting GOOD things when they disrupt (reorder) our existing formal and informal institutions. But cultures that adopt BAD things, or resist GOOD things are almost always “out gunned, out germ-ed, and out steeled” by cultures that make superior decisions. Temporary destructive innovations like mongol and arab mounted raiding techniques paired with lack of supporting formal institutions, or the forcible adoption of socialism by the bolsheviks, the maoists, and the Cambodians as examples of what works as a promise in the short term, but fails in actuality the long.

  • READ ENGELS AGAIN: BETTER FIRST SOURCES Eh.. Gist is right. Primary sources are

    READ ENGELS AGAIN: BETTER FIRST SOURCES

    Eh.. Gist is right. Primary sources are better. Our knowledge is better today. But we are shaking off centuries of bias about our natural state, only to discover that humans organize according to production units counterbalanced by the competition between male and female reproductive competition. Not much more to it than that. We have a lot more detail, but in the end, if our survival depends upon it, we alter our informal and formal institutions to support our economic (productive and consumptive) demands.

    Now, it’s certainly true that we often adopt BAD ways of doing things. And it’s certainly true that we resist adopting GOOD things when they disrupt (reorder) our existing formal and informal institutions. But cultures that adopt BAD things, or resist GOOD things are almost always “out gunned, out germ-ed, and out steeled” by cultures that make superior decisions.

    Temporary destructive innovations like mongol and arab mounted raiding techniques paired with lack of supporting formal institutions, or the forcible adoption of socialism by the bolsheviks, the maoists, and the Cambodians as examples of what works as a promise in the short term, but fails in actuality the long.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-10 05:07:00 UTC

  • MASTER PINZEL Ahead of his time. 🙂

    http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2008-01-10-wozniak-en.htmlOLD MASTER PINZEL

    Ahead of his time. 🙂

    http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2008-01-10-wozniak-en.html#


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-06 07:34:00 UTC

  • 10 Worst Cities to Visit in the United States Proof that diversity is a good? 😉

    10 Worst Cities to Visit in the United States

    Proof that diversity is a good? 😉

    http://m.escapehere.com/destination/10-worst-cities-to-visit-in-the-united-states/


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-06 05:52:00 UTC

  • VIOLATING HUMAN SCALE Human scale in architecture is deliberately violated: 1) f

    VIOLATING HUMAN SCALE

    Human scale in architecture is deliberately violated:

    1) for monumental effect. Buildings, statues, and memorials are constructed in a scale larger than life as a social/cultural signal that the subject matter is also larger than life. The extreme example is the Rodina (Motherland) statue in Volgograd (Stalingrad).

    2) for aesthetic effect. Many architects, particularly in the Modernist movement, design buildings that prioritize structural purity and clarity of form over concessions to human scale. This became the dominant American architectural style for decades. Some notable examples among many are Henry Cobb’s John Hancock Tower in Boston, much of I. M. Pei’s work including the Dallas City Hall, and Mies van der Rohe’s Neue Nationalgalerie in Berlin.

    3) to serve automotive scale. Commercial buildings that are designed to be legible from roadways assume a radically different shape. The human eye can distinguish about 3 objects or features per second. A pedestrian steadily walking along a 100-foot (30-meter) length of department store can perceive about 68 features; a driver passing the same frontage at 30 mph (13 m/s or 44 ft/s) can perceive about six or seven features. Auto-scale buildings tend to be smooth and shallow, readable at a glance, simplified, presented outward, and with signage with bigger letters and fewer words. This urban form is traceable back to the innovations of developer A. W. Ross along Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles in 1920.

    (From Wiki)


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-05 04:01:00 UTC