HORIZONTAL CLASS CLASS MEANS REPRODUCTIVE VALUE https://propertarianinstitute.com/2015/06/29/definition-of-class-reproductive-value/ THREE COERCIVE TECHNOLOGIES AND THE THREE VERTICAL CLASSES (DIAGRAM) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2011/02/15/rock-paper-scissors-three-coercive-technologies-and-three-social-classes/ MORE ON VERTICAL CLASSES https://propertarianinstitute.com/2013/11/26/propertarian-class-theory/ HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CLASSES https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/03/17/using-horizontal-and-vertical-classes/ THE INTERTEMPORAL DIVISION OF MORAL PERCEPTION BETWEEN CLASSES (DIAGRAM) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/06/19/the-intertemporal-division-of-moral-perception/ THE FUNCTIONS OF THE CLASSES https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/03/17/the-functions-of-the-classes-2/ ECONOMIC (POLITICAL) METHODS AS EXPRESSION OF CLASS PHILOSOPHY https://propertarianinstitute.com/2015/11/08/economic-methodologies-as-expressions-of-class-philosophy-and-reproductive-strategy/ IQ EDUCATION AND OCCUPATION https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/10/01/levels-of-education/ DEFINING MIDDLE CLASS https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/09/17/qa-curt-what-defines-middle-class/ WHY SO LITTLE CLASS ROTATION? https://propertarianinstitute.com/2014/06/06/why-so-little-social-class-rotation-nature-all-nature/ THE REPRODUCTIVE CLASS HIERARCHY https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/09/18/reproductive-classes/ — POLITICS — CLASS INTERPRETATIONS OF LIBERTIES https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/11/24/class-liberties/ CLASSES REQUIRE DIFFERENT ECONOMIES (THERE IS NO SINGLE BEST) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/11/25/different-economies-for-different-classes/ THREE ORDERS: KIN, CULT, STATE https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/11/14/the-three-orders-kin-cult-state/ KIN, CLASS, CASTE POLITICAL SYSTEMS https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/11/25/kin-class-caste-models-and-functions/ THE MEANS OF RULE – EACH CONTEXT https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/03/17/series-means-of-rule/ WHY MINORITY RULE IS SUPERIOR TO MAJORITY https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/10/03/adding-depth-to-talebs-insight-that-minority-rule-is-superior-to-majority/ — MARRIAGE AND CIVILIZATION — THE ORIGINS OF CIVILIZATION, SOVEREIGNTY, PROPERTY, MILITIA, MARRIAGE https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/03/23/the-origins-of-civilization-militia-property-marriage/ THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE AS COMPROMISE BETWEEN GENDERS – A TRADE. https://propertarianinstitute.com/2015/05/01/on-marriage/ HOW DO FAMILY STRUCTURES VARY? https://propertarianinstitute.com/2014/08/26/how-do-family-structures-vary/ DOMESTICATION BY FAMILY UNIT https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/10/07/domestication-by-family-unit/ MORALS REFLECT GENETIC DISTANCE https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/10/15/morals-reflect-genetic-distance/
Theme: Class
-
A Short Course In Sociology (Group Cooperation)
HORIZONTAL CLASS CLASS MEANS REPRODUCTIVE VALUE https://propertarianinstitute.com/2015/06/29/definition-of-class-reproductive-value/ THREE COERCIVE TECHNOLOGIES AND THE THREE VERTICAL CLASSES (DIAGRAM) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2011/02/15/rock-paper-scissors-three-coercive-technologies-and-three-social-classes/ MORE ON VERTICAL CLASSES https://propertarianinstitute.com/2013/11/26/propertarian-class-theory/ HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CLASSES https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/03/17/using-horizontal-and-vertical-classes/ THE INTERTEMPORAL DIVISION OF MORAL PERCEPTION BETWEEN CLASSES (DIAGRAM) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/06/19/the-intertemporal-division-of-moral-perception/ THE FUNCTIONS OF THE CLASSES https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/03/17/the-functions-of-the-classes-2/ ECONOMIC (POLITICAL) METHODS AS EXPRESSION OF CLASS PHILOSOPHY https://propertarianinstitute.com/2015/11/08/economic-methodologies-as-expressions-of-class-philosophy-and-reproductive-strategy/ IQ EDUCATION AND OCCUPATION https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/10/01/levels-of-education/ DEFINING MIDDLE CLASS https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/09/17/qa-curt-what-defines-middle-class/ WHY SO LITTLE CLASS ROTATION? https://propertarianinstitute.com/2014/06/06/why-so-little-social-class-rotation-nature-all-nature/ THE REPRODUCTIVE CLASS HIERARCHY https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/09/18/reproductive-classes/ — POLITICS — CLASS INTERPRETATIONS OF LIBERTIES https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/11/24/class-liberties/ CLASSES REQUIRE DIFFERENT ECONOMIES (THERE IS NO SINGLE BEST) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/11/25/different-economies-for-different-classes/ THREE ORDERS: KIN, CULT, STATE https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/11/14/the-three-orders-kin-cult-state/ KIN, CLASS, CASTE POLITICAL SYSTEMS https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/11/25/kin-class-caste-models-and-functions/ THE MEANS OF RULE – EACH CONTEXT https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/03/17/series-means-of-rule/ WHY MINORITY RULE IS SUPERIOR TO MAJORITY https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/10/03/adding-depth-to-talebs-insight-that-minority-rule-is-superior-to-majority/ — MARRIAGE AND CIVILIZATION — THE ORIGINS OF CIVILIZATION, SOVEREIGNTY, PROPERTY, MILITIA, MARRIAGE https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/03/23/the-origins-of-civilization-militia-property-marriage/ THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE AS COMPROMISE BETWEEN GENDERS – A TRADE. https://propertarianinstitute.com/2015/05/01/on-marriage/ HOW DO FAMILY STRUCTURES VARY? https://propertarianinstitute.com/2014/08/26/how-do-family-structures-vary/ DOMESTICATION BY FAMILY UNIT https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/10/07/domestication-by-family-unit/ MORALS REFLECT GENETIC DISTANCE https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/10/15/morals-reflect-genetic-distance/
-
COUNTER-SIGNALING NEO-LIBERALISM 😉 (contra free trade)(from econlog) (COMMENT R
COUNTER-SIGNALING NEO-LIBERALISM 😉
(contra free trade)(from econlog)
(COMMENT REJECTED BY ECONLOG – WOW_
Gentlemen (and the economic academy as a whole)
1) it is fairly evident that the value of lower prices declined with completion of the transition from agrarianism. In fact, investors, inventors, entrepreneurs, manufacturers, and distributors, and merchants, have a very hard time selling anything but marketing and status signal deltas. (See research on phones, phone plans, and software for them). What pent up demand for consumption exists? Other than for signals? In fact, it is quite possible to make an argument that status signal consumption is evidence of hyperconsumption and a misallocation of all forms of capital.(See virtue signaling in Austrialia, Canada, and the UK, and among progressives in the USA. What is the cost of virtue signal spirals? How are they made possible? The answer is non-trivial.)
2) Cherry-picking consumption without measuring offsetting costs, and declines in intra-generational, inter-generational capital( capital in toto), is not practicing science. It’s practicing pseudoscience.
3) When was the last time you saw a balance sheet rather than an income statement, and what is the difference in the aggregates illustrated by each?
4) Why does the myth persist that there is a difference in personal, familial, local, regional, and national economics without stating that difference is limited to monetary not capital in toto constraints?
So no. There is a limit to comparative advantage (capital consumption). Free trade, like investment in literacy, is a transitional good not a persistent one. Cities create a false efficiency under all but the German postwar model. They are transitional not absolute goods. Measurement of consumption is a transitional good, not a persistent one. Democracy is a transitional good in the presence of windfalls from technology or resources, republicanism superior during status quo, and fascism superior during periods of war.
A necessary test of pseudoscience is whether limits have been articulated, so that we do not make the error of confusing temporal utility with ‘ideal’ good.
There are no theories without limit except the theory that there are no theories without limit.
20th century economics consists of the study of transition from agrarianism, to industrialism, to informational economies.
What measures are missing? How do we know when the model we used for transition is no longer transitional but purely consumptive of longer term capital?
(Signals)
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-30 08:47:00 UTC
-
I LOVE the middle and working classes, it’s the over-educated cultists trained b
I LOVE the middle and working classes, it’s the over-educated cultists trained by the Academy (State Church) in the hatred of western civilization (Critical Theory), who are the immoral in word,deed and conspiracy of common folly.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-29 14:57:00 UTC
-
Conservative: Non-Parasitism (father) Libertarian: Commons Parasitism (brother)
Conservative: Non-Parasitism (father)
Libertarian: Commons Parasitism (brother)
Progressive: Private and Commons Parasitism (sister-mother)
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-27 12:41:00 UTC
-
On Unions
ON UNIONS The unions made common mistakes of overreach. They began with the moral: safety, liability, minimum wages, profit sharing, and replacing with cheaper workers (arbitrage). But then proceeded with overreaches that varied from moral hazard: demands for impossible future claims: continuous increases and pensions; then to the immoral: mandatory membership, mandatory fees, and fostering endemic corruption; then to the violation of natural law: interfering in the political process. It’s a shock to capitalists and free marketers raised on the myth of constant growth made possible under the agrarian and industrial (hydrocarbon) eras, and prohibiting temporal labor arbitrage is perhaps hard for the layman to understand when it occurs across decades of time rather than across national borders, but men are not commodities and their marketability declines rapidly after choice of first opportunity – and seizing all the ‘best’ time at the lowest price under promise of future rewards is merely an act of fraud. So it is all too easy to socialize uncompetitiveness and privatize commons into the hands of investors and capitalists. Most capitalists cannot compete under free trade because profits would be much smaller. Contrary to libertarian dogma, and contrary to anglo bourgeois values, while the puritan/manorial work ethic is an unquestionable good, and while rule of law assisting in capital concentration and formation is an unquestionable good, as a good Propertarian we query ‘But what are the limits of that good? Because there exist no unlimited theories and therefore no unlimited goods.’ And we find that it is possible to socialize losses and privatize gains if we do not perform full accounting. And a full accounting only ends when we have reduced all accounts to ‘time’. Because it is ‘time’ that is the currency we trade.
-
On Unions
ON UNIONS The unions made common mistakes of overreach. They began with the moral: safety, liability, minimum wages, profit sharing, and replacing with cheaper workers (arbitrage). But then proceeded with overreaches that varied from moral hazard: demands for impossible future claims: continuous increases and pensions; then to the immoral: mandatory membership, mandatory fees, and fostering endemic corruption; then to the violation of natural law: interfering in the political process. It’s a shock to capitalists and free marketers raised on the myth of constant growth made possible under the agrarian and industrial (hydrocarbon) eras, and prohibiting temporal labor arbitrage is perhaps hard for the layman to understand when it occurs across decades of time rather than across national borders, but men are not commodities and their marketability declines rapidly after choice of first opportunity – and seizing all the ‘best’ time at the lowest price under promise of future rewards is merely an act of fraud. So it is all too easy to socialize uncompetitiveness and privatize commons into the hands of investors and capitalists. Most capitalists cannot compete under free trade because profits would be much smaller. Contrary to libertarian dogma, and contrary to anglo bourgeois values, while the puritan/manorial work ethic is an unquestionable good, and while rule of law assisting in capital concentration and formation is an unquestionable good, as a good Propertarian we query ‘But what are the limits of that good? Because there exist no unlimited theories and therefore no unlimited goods.’ And we find that it is possible to socialize losses and privatize gains if we do not perform full accounting. And a full accounting only ends when we have reduced all accounts to ‘time’. Because it is ‘time’ that is the currency we trade.
-
Natural Law Doesn’t Justify Aristocracy – It Justifies Markets – It Is Just That Natural Law Is Only Possible Under Aristocracy
btw: (important) I advocate natural law because it forces reciprocity, and by reciprocity forces markets in everything. The only thing the underclasses have to trade is self control, and particularly reproductive self control. The outcome of that self control turns out to be eugenic – which is a benefit by externality. The reason I advocate aristocracy, is because the only thing the strong have to trade is violence, and the only use that violence can be put to under reciprocity is the construction of reciprocity (natural law), markets, and the externality of eugenic transcendence. And because in history, if they do not profit from rule by their violence, they will be consumed parasitically by those who profit from deceit(left), or commerce (middle), I merely state this eugenic transcendence aesthetically to answer my critics that I fail to provide an aesthetic to the aristocratic(father), and only provide the aesthetic to the bourgeoise (brother). the left (mother) lacks agency so their approval is only something to explain and judge, not ask since their aesthetic is not one of reciprocity but parasitism. As a criticism of those who follow me as far as I know, only Eli, Butch, and TRS’s Mike Enoch were able to understand this without explanation. Why? you and I evolved and have been trained, to think in ideal types and on dimension of difference, not in equilibria producing desirable outcomes by externality of following incentives rather simple one or two dimensional rules. We evolved at human scale, but must now answer questions of large numbers beyond human scale. Can you evolve to think in equilibrial, external, mutli-causal density? Of course you can. There are only so many dimensions of causes that affect our judgements. And I cannot tell if this is an physical (iq) limitation, a normative limitation(habit), or pedagogical (learning) question, but since I can do it, others must be able to. And I can observe from my own learning and Eli’s that it is not intuitive – like economics it is precisely counter-intuitive, and must become intuitive -like reading , math, and economics – to make use of it. ) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (h/t: Bill Joslin for indirectly telling me I had to state this.) 🙂
-
Natural Law Doesn’t Justify Aristocracy – It Justifies Markets – It Is Just That Natural Law Is Only Possible Under Aristocracy
btw: (important) I advocate natural law because it forces reciprocity, and by reciprocity forces markets in everything. The only thing the underclasses have to trade is self control, and particularly reproductive self control. The outcome of that self control turns out to be eugenic – which is a benefit by externality. The reason I advocate aristocracy, is because the only thing the strong have to trade is violence, and the only use that violence can be put to under reciprocity is the construction of reciprocity (natural law), markets, and the externality of eugenic transcendence. And because in history, if they do not profit from rule by their violence, they will be consumed parasitically by those who profit from deceit(left), or commerce (middle), I merely state this eugenic transcendence aesthetically to answer my critics that I fail to provide an aesthetic to the aristocratic(father), and only provide the aesthetic to the bourgeoise (brother). the left (mother) lacks agency so their approval is only something to explain and judge, not ask since their aesthetic is not one of reciprocity but parasitism. As a criticism of those who follow me as far as I know, only Eli, Butch, and TRS’s Mike Enoch were able to understand this without explanation. Why? you and I evolved and have been trained, to think in ideal types and on dimension of difference, not in equilibria producing desirable outcomes by externality of following incentives rather simple one or two dimensional rules. We evolved at human scale, but must now answer questions of large numbers beyond human scale. Can you evolve to think in equilibrial, external, mutli-causal density? Of course you can. There are only so many dimensions of causes that affect our judgements. And I cannot tell if this is an physical (iq) limitation, a normative limitation(habit), or pedagogical (learning) question, but since I can do it, others must be able to. And I can observe from my own learning and Eli’s that it is not intuitive – like economics it is precisely counter-intuitive, and must become intuitive -like reading , math, and economics – to make use of it. ) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (h/t: Bill Joslin for indirectly telling me I had to state this.) 🙂
-
Civilizations Developed Technologies for Clear Reasons.
MESOPOTAMIA Which class rule evolved first mesopotamia: Warriors or Priests? (we know the answer) Which class emerged in control of rule? Did that class adopt the role of the other (conflate)? Did that ruling class conflate roles of religion and law? Now, the little rhetorical problem here is that I made the original statements about the tendencies of CIVILIZATIONS to make use of different TECHNOLOGIES of organization, and the unintended consequences of those rules. I make this argument in order to expand upon the differnces between western, fertile crescent, hrappan/indian, and chinese civilizations, and how our earliest assumptions about the world, man, the good, and the true, originated in the ancient past and still govern us today – with unintended consequences. And I make this argument so that westerners understand why, as poor people, small in number, lacking concentrate capital of the river valleys, developed FASTER (not first, just faster) than other civilizations in the pre-historic, ancient, and modern eras. Why is that? Well, I think I know, and I think it’s something we CAN know. Here is another example. If we read the inscriptions from the Palace Stele from Ur, the Cuneiform of Cyrus and Darius and his Son Darius (starting with the 27th or Persian Dynasty), with the inscriptions of similar periods of the Egyptians (just prior to persian conquest), with the writings of Homer and shortly after of the ‘Athenians’, or any of the greeks, with the writing of the romans, of the german law and myth, of the english law and myth, then what is the difference in the method of narration, explanation and argument? All civilizations produce some level of occult(experiential), religion, myth, literature, history, law, mathematics, and ‘science'(existential). But we can actually MEASURE that distribution. And we can easily determine the level of conflation or deflation (from occult down to science) that governance relies upon, and we can measure changes in the economies that result from those (a) distributions of use and (b) use in government. So we can MEASURE the consequences of say, how chinese rule changed when the migrated from empirical to moral rule. We can measure the consequences of the use of islam by the aristocracy and it’s use as a method of general rule. (btw: the fellow in the original thread does not know just how much knowledge I have of the ancient middle east, but I’m pretty sure it’s comparatively non trivial. and it would turn into a pissing match if I took that avenue with him. ) THE WAY WE SPEAK, THE METHODS OF NARRATION, EXPLANATION, ARGUMENT, AND DECIDABILITY profoundly influence us. And if we conduct rule by those different methods they profoundly affect us more. The problem is the means of rule by scientific law is expensive and requires a high trust low context society, and the means of mythological rule is inexpensive but only requires indoctrination in a high context but produces a low trust society. These are profound questions that explain our evolutionary differences. Curt