Because you are carrying around the enlightenment error that anyone other than egalitarian aristocracy actually desires liberty. They don’t. Aristocracy: 1) Private Property Rights in exchange for contributing Perpetual Military Service in the defense of private property rights of all who have earned them. 2) Egalitarianism: anyone willing to also grant rights and contribute service can also gain those rights by contributing that service. 3) Denial, by promise of violence, of any and all concentration of power sufficient to alter the distribution of property and property rights. 4) The Absolute Nuclear Family and Prohibition on inbreeding. 5) Chivalry: Social Status Through Charity, and service as well as through arms. 6) Decision Making by majority vote of those who have earned property rights. Aristocracy is tribal paternity and property rights, open to all who will equally grant them, and defend them. LIBERTY EXPRESSED AS A ‘RIGHT’ IS AN ATTEMPT TO GAIN PROPERTY RIGHTS AT A DISCOUNT, AND NOTHING ELSE.
Theme: Class
-
Propertarian Horizontal Class Theory
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.
-
Propertarian Horizontal Class Theory
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.
-
The Aristocracy Of Everybody, Is A Failure
It isn’t’ just that the majority cannot join the aristocracy, and earn, use and keep property rights. It is that they do not desire to earn, use and keep property rights. People want the benefits of aristocracy but not the effort. They want to be serfs. They want to be taken care of. They don’t want to bear risks. They don’t want to compete, And they aren’t able to. And they demonstrate it at every opportunity. Having empirically proven that the enlightenment effort to bring all of mankind into the aristocracy, has been a catastrophic failure, and at present is threatening western civilization; the question is then, whether we abandon the enlightenment goal of an ‘aristocracy of everybody’, and demand property rights by force of arms once again, as we previously civilized the barbarians of the world, or whether we let ourselves, our civilization and aristocracy die. Not with a roar of triumph. Not with a whimper. But with silent cowardice.
-
The Aristocracy Of Everybody, Is A Failure
It isn’t’ just that the majority cannot join the aristocracy, and earn, use and keep property rights. It is that they do not desire to earn, use and keep property rights. People want the benefits of aristocracy but not the effort. They want to be serfs. They want to be taken care of. They don’t want to bear risks. They don’t want to compete, And they aren’t able to. And they demonstrate it at every opportunity. Having empirically proven that the enlightenment effort to bring all of mankind into the aristocracy, has been a catastrophic failure, and at present is threatening western civilization; the question is then, whether we abandon the enlightenment goal of an ‘aristocracy of everybody’, and demand property rights by force of arms once again, as we previously civilized the barbarians of the world, or whether we let ourselves, our civilization and aristocracy die. Not with a roar of triumph. Not with a whimper. But with silent cowardice.
-
(CORE) The Moral Basis of Red and Blue States?
One’s moral priorities are not a choice, but a justification that has been reduced to an intuition. They must be – reason would be too expensive and too unpredictable for the formation of norms. And those intuitions, which we are in the process of confirming, are both genetically and familially determined. And the structure of the family is determined by the structure of economic production on one hand, and the spectrum of cousin marriage from taboo to expectation, on the other. ->Genetics, Family structure, Production Outbreeding, Norms, Mythology, and Pedagogy. In fact, the only reason we see migration in moral biases is so that individuals can demonstrate wealth, opportunity, and freedom from mercantile and manorial ethics as a form of conspicuous consumption and therefore as a status and mating signal. The origins of our universalism are a side effect of the success of the church in prohibiting cousin marriage and granting property rights to women as a means of breaking up the large landholding families so that the church could more easily and cheaply buy land. America was homogenous in indoctrinating everyone into the Absolute Nuclear Family because immigration displaced extended family networks and the economy in the states prohibited prior loyalties because of available growth. Black americans had an even higher rate of marriage than whites. But the postmodern and feminist programs have undermined the absolute nuclear family using both academia, public intellectuals, policy, and law; because of the introduction of female voters into the work place, and voting pools gave each group new constituent – customers. And it has consistently been the voting pattern of women to expand the welfare state, remove the need for marriage before reproduction, and remove the punitive economic and social norms for single motherhood. At this point voting is determined by single women. And we will soon reach the point where 40% or more of children are born to single mothers, who must singularly support a household, and as such will be poorer than married people with two incomes who support a household. And that is what we see in voting patterns. White married women vote right to keep their family and income. Unmarried and single women and minorities (non-whites, since minority status is rapidly approaching in younger demographics), vote to seek rents and free-riding. I work on the other side of the spectrum from the status-seeking, conspicuously consumptive, moral justification of redistribution as a replacement for marriage. My objective is the preservation of the high trust society. But the high trust society is a product of the absolute nuclear family as the dominant moral influence in American culture. And what we are seeing, is, in 50 years, it’s rapid decline, and the economic polarization, and moral polarization, of the country along those moral lines. We cannot keep the high trust society, and the positive benefits that come from it, without the ANF and the moral code that accompanies it. Or, there is no evidence that such a thing is possible. But, it appears, that at least for a rapidly increasing number of women, this circumstance is superior to the corporation by which we concentrate capital: marriage. Monogamy and paternalism, as Engels reminded us, were innovations that were the result of the development of property during agrarianism and pastoralism. But if women can marry the state, rather than a man, they can restore the tribal order, and bear children while placing the burden of their upkeep on the tribe (state). And that appears to be both normal and preferential. So I think this is a more likely cause of today’s circumstance than leftover anger at the ‘war of northern aggression’, the purpose of which was to prevent the agrarian, export-oriented south from using slavery in the new territory to form a political block, that could encircle the import-oriented north. Reproduction and status are an economy. Norms are an economy. Production is an economy. And moral discourse is verbal warfare over which sector will win which benefits. Cheers
-
(CORE) The Moral Basis of Red and Blue States?
One’s moral priorities are not a choice, but a justification that has been reduced to an intuition. They must be – reason would be too expensive and too unpredictable for the formation of norms. And those intuitions, which we are in the process of confirming, are both genetically and familially determined. And the structure of the family is determined by the structure of economic production on one hand, and the spectrum of cousin marriage from taboo to expectation, on the other. ->Genetics, Family structure, Production Outbreeding, Norms, Mythology, and Pedagogy. In fact, the only reason we see migration in moral biases is so that individuals can demonstrate wealth, opportunity, and freedom from mercantile and manorial ethics as a form of conspicuous consumption and therefore as a status and mating signal. The origins of our universalism are a side effect of the success of the church in prohibiting cousin marriage and granting property rights to women as a means of breaking up the large landholding families so that the church could more easily and cheaply buy land. America was homogenous in indoctrinating everyone into the Absolute Nuclear Family because immigration displaced extended family networks and the economy in the states prohibited prior loyalties because of available growth. Black americans had an even higher rate of marriage than whites. But the postmodern and feminist programs have undermined the absolute nuclear family using both academia, public intellectuals, policy, and law; because of the introduction of female voters into the work place, and voting pools gave each group new constituent – customers. And it has consistently been the voting pattern of women to expand the welfare state, remove the need for marriage before reproduction, and remove the punitive economic and social norms for single motherhood. At this point voting is determined by single women. And we will soon reach the point where 40% or more of children are born to single mothers, who must singularly support a household, and as such will be poorer than married people with two incomes who support a household. And that is what we see in voting patterns. White married women vote right to keep their family and income. Unmarried and single women and minorities (non-whites, since minority status is rapidly approaching in younger demographics), vote to seek rents and free-riding. I work on the other side of the spectrum from the status-seeking, conspicuously consumptive, moral justification of redistribution as a replacement for marriage. My objective is the preservation of the high trust society. But the high trust society is a product of the absolute nuclear family as the dominant moral influence in American culture. And what we are seeing, is, in 50 years, it’s rapid decline, and the economic polarization, and moral polarization, of the country along those moral lines. We cannot keep the high trust society, and the positive benefits that come from it, without the ANF and the moral code that accompanies it. Or, there is no evidence that such a thing is possible. But, it appears, that at least for a rapidly increasing number of women, this circumstance is superior to the corporation by which we concentrate capital: marriage. Monogamy and paternalism, as Engels reminded us, were innovations that were the result of the development of property during agrarianism and pastoralism. But if women can marry the state, rather than a man, they can restore the tribal order, and bear children while placing the burden of their upkeep on the tribe (state). And that appears to be both normal and preferential. So I think this is a more likely cause of today’s circumstance than leftover anger at the ‘war of northern aggression’, the purpose of which was to prevent the agrarian, export-oriented south from using slavery in the new territory to form a political block, that could encircle the import-oriented north. Reproduction and status are an economy. Norms are an economy. Production is an economy. And moral discourse is verbal warfare over which sector will win which benefits. Cheers
-
ARISTOCRACY VS GENTRY I have’t figured out how I’m doing to deal with this yet,
ARISTOCRACY VS GENTRY
I have’t figured out how I’m doing to deal with this yet, but there is indeed a difference between Aristocratic egalitarian manorialism, and the Aristocratic class. One describes the metaphysical prejudices of a social order, the other it’s extreme instantiation in a small number of individuals.
In fact, as someone else pointed out today, the Aristocrats were, for much of the medieval period, bloody warriors that the church could not suppress.
But that said, I disagree with the negative opinions of aristocracy held by most historians. The aristocratic obsession was a ‘good thing’ is based upon the fact that the church (STATE) could NOT suppress them. Nor can the state suppress an armed militia.
While the current intellectual emphasis is on the family, and outbreeding, as the source of the western aristocratic egalitarian ethic, the militia is an equally important institution – because it was the first: the cause of liberty and property.
GENTRY
The gentry were the middle managers who actually ran society the way that sergeants run the army.
And when we say that one is a gentleman, we refer to the behavior of the gentry, if not the martial aristocracy.
These gentlemen and their families built England, as a commercial power.
And it is their progeny that we all represent.
Source date (UTC): 2013-11-25 10:17:00 UTC
-
END OF LAW AS A PREDICTOR OF GOOD INCOME Lower standards Too many lawyers The ex
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/the-changing-income-distribution-for-lawyers-average-is-over.htmlTHE END OF LAW AS A PREDICTOR OF GOOD INCOME
Lower standards
Too many lawyers
The expansion of the law into niche and nuance
The reordering of society to revolve around government where people are powerless, rather than courts where they are not.
Source date (UTC): 2013-11-25 03:11:00 UTC
-
Its very funny to watch how television and movies portray negotiations between m
Its very funny to watch how television and movies portray negotiations between members of the upper classes. Lower middle class actors demonstrating upper proletarian emotions.
Powerful people are quiet, patient, deliberative and boring.
Source date (UTC): 2013-11-20 04:45:00 UTC
