Theme: Class

  • The Economist Magazine Is Wrong On Oligarchs: Flaunt It. Flaunt It Everywhere. Always.

    The Economist: Don’t Flaunt It*That’s what a Republic is. A Natural Rotation Of Oligarchs.* [E]very country has an oligarchy. Oligarchies are NECESSARY and they are unavoidable. The question is which composition of people do you want to be governed by: (a) soldiers, (b) priests or (c) commerce? Why that list of three? Because there are only three forms of coercion avalable for humans to use in building organizations: (a) violence, (b) ostracization from opportunity and (c) exchange – or, technically, remuneration. If, as we have seen, people DEMONSTRATE that they UNIVERSALLY prefer to live under conditions of wealth, and only ONE of these three coercive sets CREATES wealth, then it is only logical, that china DUPLICATES the rise of the West’s aristocracy – which is the SOURCE of western prosperity – by having government run by people who udnerstaand commerce. And in particular, who understand nationalism as a commercial strategy. THEY DO IT RIGHT. WE DO IT WRONG NOW. Our leaders are priests of egalitarianism – who assume business will succeed and that they can simply plunder business at will. They are Not aristocrats responsible for the economic welfare of their citizens. China is doing it RIGHT. They’re doing it RIGHT by imitating the rise of the WEST. The rise that we were programmed by the left to believe was evil, colonial, oppressive, masculine. When in fact, we dragged all of humanity out of pervasive ignorance and poverty with our aristocratic christian ethics, technology, and culture. FLAUNT IT. FLAUNT IT EVERY DAY. AND CHEER THOSE WHO FLAUNT IT.

  • The Economist Magazine Is Wrong On Oligarchs: Flaunt It. Flaunt It Everywhere. Always.

    The Economist: Don’t Flaunt It*That’s what a Republic is. A Natural Rotation Of Oligarchs.* [E]very country has an oligarchy. Oligarchies are NECESSARY and they are unavoidable. The question is which composition of people do you want to be governed by: (a) soldiers, (b) priests or (c) commerce? Why that list of three? Because there are only three forms of coercion avalable for humans to use in building organizations: (a) violence, (b) ostracization from opportunity and (c) exchange – or, technically, remuneration. If, as we have seen, people DEMONSTRATE that they UNIVERSALLY prefer to live under conditions of wealth, and only ONE of these three coercive sets CREATES wealth, then it is only logical, that china DUPLICATES the rise of the West’s aristocracy – which is the SOURCE of western prosperity – by having government run by people who udnerstaand commerce. And in particular, who understand nationalism as a commercial strategy. THEY DO IT RIGHT. WE DO IT WRONG NOW. Our leaders are priests of egalitarianism – who assume business will succeed and that they can simply plunder business at will. They are Not aristocrats responsible for the economic welfare of their citizens. China is doing it RIGHT. They’re doing it RIGHT by imitating the rise of the WEST. The rise that we were programmed by the left to believe was evil, colonial, oppressive, masculine. When in fact, we dragged all of humanity out of pervasive ignorance and poverty with our aristocratic christian ethics, technology, and culture. FLAUNT IT. FLAUNT IT EVERY DAY. AND CHEER THOSE WHO FLAUNT IT.

  • PEOPLE Exceptional, accessible, and compassionate read

    http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/former-people-douglas-smith/1111013783FORMER PEOPLE

    Exceptional, accessible, and compassionate read.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-06-22 09:42:00 UTC

  • “I was once challenged as to why the economics department … didn’t teach Marxi

    “I was once challenged as to why the economics department … didn’t teach Marxist economics, I responded “we let the English department do that.”

    – Prof. Alex Tabarrok

    “Professor Stigler, I see that there is nothing on the syllabus by Karl Marx. Why is that?” Stigler paused and then answered: “Marx was a lousy economist.”

    – George Stigler

    My favorite insults of the left so far this year.

    Thanks to David Henderson


    Source date (UTC): 2013-06-16 09:20:00 UTC

  • ITS POSTMODERNISM, NOT SOCIALISM All generals try to fight the last war. And it

    ITS POSTMODERNISM, NOT SOCIALISM

    All generals try to fight the last war. And it seems like all our libertarian intellectuals try to fight central control: socialism. Which is … fighting the last war.

    A war that we won, by the way, at least against the statist intellectuals. The strategic, political and economic war was won by conservatives. Not by us. Conservatives speak in moral, not analytical language.

    NAMES MATTER

    They are shortcuts for ideas and socialism is a dead idea. It has been replaced by postmodernism – an attack on our system of liberty that is correctly termed egalitarian aristocracy.

    Rothbard and Mises dont matter in the debate between Postmodernism and Egalitarian Aristocracy. Rothbard is wrong on ethics and Mises on Praxeology. Because they ignore the necessity of high trust in making liberty possible.

    THE CURRENT BATTLE IS AGAINST THE IRRATIONAL

    Postmodernism – the equivalent of a state religion for empires – is predicated on the same degree of falsehood as was Marx and the labor theory of value. Postmodernism is ideological as was socialism. But instead of trying to argue that socialism is moral and scientific – which we disproved – it borrows from Abrahamic and Zoroastrian theology, which uses the strategy of chanting desirable but patent falsehoods.

    Whereas conservatives suffer because the form of conservatism is arational, even if its content is beneficial. Postmodern content, like continental philosophy, is irrational and its content economically destructive. But it is wrapped in pseudo rational language that attempts to obscure its deception through emotional and moral loading as well as linguistic complexity.

    If something cannot be described as human actions, whereupon each action is subject to the test of the rational actor and rational incentives, then it is either incomplete, false, or deception.

    Postmodernism is deception

    Libertarians must fight intellectual battles and conservatives, who vastly outnumber us, must fight moral and political battles.

    But we cannot perform our part of the division of labor if we fight the wrong battle.

    And socialism is a dead horse. Our ideological battle is postmodernism, post-post, and all the derivative attempts to restore the communal, static, equalitarian, dysgenic poverty of the pre-aristocratic societies.

    The silly distractions provided by Heritage, Cato, Mises, FEI rely on the failed assumption that liberty is a universal desire. When the data demonstrates that universally, women vote less diversely than men and favor totalitarian equality that is natural to their breeding strategy. And incrementally all democratic societies must incrementally adopt totalitarian equalitarianism under the female vote.

    The battle is not socialism. The answer is not anarchy. The only solution we have is property rights and the guarantee of violence if deprived of them.

    The only security against the necessity and expense if violence is to undermine the postmodern ideology and feminism.

    It does not matter if other groups seek redistributive or communal ends if we employ a political system that allows them to operate as a class, and us to operate as a class.

    In that political system we can negotiate exchanges with that class. We must understand that this creates a market for trading that is not structurally different from the market for goods and services. Dictatorship gives the majority communalists the advantage, and the free market gives us the advantage. Since it is illogical to ask either side to suffer the advantage if the other, the only compromise position is to create institutions that facilitate cooperation between classes with disparate interests.

    Hoppe has provided a means of reducing or eliminating state bureaucracy and its attendant monopoly.

    But the question of how we cooperate with those who have polarized interests had not been solved.

    Curt Doolittle, Kiev


    Source date (UTC): 2013-06-16 08:13:00 UTC

  • LOVED THIS: THE LUXURY OF TREES How trees or lack of them correlates with urban

    LOVED THIS: THE LUXURY OF TREES

    How trees or lack of them correlates with urban poverty.

    Why? Trees are a commons. The poor don’t respect commons. We don’t invest in commons for the poor because they don’t respect them. We call this fact the twin problem of property rights and time preference. Some of us call it ‘discipline’ or ‘upbringing’ or ‘class’. But in the end, it’s the same thing: overbreeding children you can’t support is a short time preference, demonstration of lack of discipline and foresight, and a failure to respect the commons.

    http://persquaremile.com/2012/05/24/income-inequality-seen-from-space/


    Source date (UTC): 2013-06-12 03:04:00 UTC

  • How Uneducated Are Americans? How Many People Skipped “intellectual Refinement” (no High School, No College And Beyond)?

    A MORE INTERESTING QUESTION THAN IT FIRST APPEARS. I”LL TRY TO DO IT JUSITC.

    1) Americans have the highest confidence despite middling education by comparison to other countries. (Google it.)

    2) Americans are disproportionately wealthy so our lower classes can express their ideas, and are more confident expressing those ideas.

    3) Our education system promotes common falsehoods in support of postmodern ideology, and our religious and traditional systems promote common falsehoods in support of aristocratic ideology (traditional american values).

    4) The Pareto principle applies to all human activity: about 1% of people think of everything, about 19% understand and distribute that knowledge, and the remaining 80% form a long chain of imitation of that 20%. The distribution of IQ over 105 largely reflects the Pareto Principle.  105 is the boundary for articulated reason and repair of machines.

    5) The evidence is that people reason much better over the past century.  Its just that more people, in a wider distribution, with a lower average, participate in public discourse — and our academics have adopted a new but equally fallacious, albeit secular, religion and are propagating that religion, which both encourages confidence and spreads falsehoods.  In response, the traditionalists retrench into their ideologies and so the din of irrationality continues to increase.

    6) Despite the increase in population and the dramatic increase in education, hard degrees have remained relatively constant since 1963 – (we have not increased the number of ‘smart’ people getting degrees that require ‘smarts’ since that time. See Louis Menand and his bibliography on this topic.)  Despite he dramatic change in our economy since the introduction of information technology and the decline of labor as an economic value, our education system still teaches using the model of the 1940’s and 1950’s – due largely to the competition over ideological control of education content combined with the resistance of teacher’s unions, and the transfer of spending on budgets from teachers salaries to administrative bureaucracy.

    Advice: Until you understand the failings of science, the limits of mathematics under complexity, the lack of maturity in our understanding of the calculus of measurement, the immaturity of our understanding of economics and statistics, and the extraordinary influence of our cognitive biases – particularly false consensus bias, and the patently false content of most political philosophy, especially Postmodern political philosophy (“liberalism”), you might want to consider that allegorical, moral, and historical arguments have survived evolutionary processes and have produce positive outcomes even if articulated in arational terms. The profundity of this problem is  what those of us who occupy ourselves with the solution to political problems struggle with.  And this is Hayek’s lesson in The Road to Serfdom as well as the warning given us by Popper, Kuhn and Taleb, and historians like Mokyr. Reason is a limited tool, because of the variation in human ability.

    The west is only beginning to understand what made it unique in world history, and it turns out that it’s not what we thought – and it might not even be very comforting – it’s just true anyway.

    7) Most political differences consist of differences in time preference and mating strategy.  As we evolve into individual economic units and the nuclear family becomes a minority, our different reproductive strategies – which determine our moral preferences and biases – are increasingly expressed in our political preferences, and social rhetoric.  We have lost the common interest that multi house republican democracy under majority rule assumes we possess.   Majority rule can solve the problem of selecting priorities for people with similar interests. Multi house majority rule can solve the problem of selecting priorities and negotiating compromises and trades between the social and economic classes.  But majority rule cannot solve the problem of selecting from competing interests, or even negotiating resolutions between competing interests.

    Our political system was designed to prevent legislation without wide support.  But it has devolved for the reasons I mention above. and there is no solution to it in our current political system. We have an agrarian system of government designed in the age of sail, using accounting methods with agrarian (monthly) periodicity, that requires nuclear families with common interests, and a people with homogenous cultural values.  

    But we no longer have homogenous values, we no longer have common interests, we no longer have nuclear families, we no longer have agrarian economies, we operate in an age of instant transfer of information, and our businesses are organized, conducted, and then decline, not over generations but over less than a decades.

    in context – people appear ‘dumber’ for these reasons. 🙂

    https://www.quora.com/How-uneducated-are-Americans-How-many-people-skipped-intellectual-refinement-no-high-school-no-college-and-beyond

  • AND REPRODUCTION (from a post I answered on Quora) “….Atheism is correlative w

    http://www.quora.com/permalink/BKTUIZixFATHEISM AND REPRODUCTION

    (from a post I answered on Quora)

    “….Atheism is correlative with lower reproduction in the upper classes, and CAUSAL with reproduction in the lower classes.”

    QUESTION:

    “Is atheism a threat to humanity due to its lower birth rates?”

    ANSWER: THE ANSWER IS MORE COMPLICATED THAN OTHER POSTERS SUGGEST.

    I’ll try to do it justice.

    The answer is yes, that it’s correlative. Empirically, yes in the aggregate atheists have fewer children. And yes, its partly causal.

    1) Reproduction is losing it’s economic utility as a guarantee of old age security.

    2) Consumer capitalism raises the cost of creating ‘middle class and working class children’ and so birth rates decline along with industrialization.

    3) Atheism is highly correlative with education, and education correlative with income, and income correlative with decreased reproduction. (Children are a net negative on career development because they are time consuming. Or conversely, careerism in two income household deprives both individuals of the time necessary for child rearing. )

    4) Prettier women have more children, married women have more children, women who stay at home have more children. Less attractive women have fewer children. Unmarried women have fewer children. Women who work have fewer children. This is all just data. We have put women into the work force and decreased their rate of breeding RELATIVE to the rates of breeding in other civilizations. (This was most evident in russian and japan, both of whom are facing serious long term economic problems because of it. You cannot easily have both the employment of women AND paid retirement and health care. At least, that’s what it looks like.)

    5) With the advent of redistribution, loss of male property rights, and child support and financial support, Women are “marrying the state”, or “marrying the state via child support”. Both of these do statistically decrease reproduction, as they also render the males economically not viable for other women. (That’s the data. Sorry if it’s unpleasant.)

    6) The lower classes are dramatically shifting out of monogamy into serial monogamy. Humans are naturally serially monogamous in tribal life. Monogamy is economically competitive, but not natural to man – we evolved to manage relationships that last on the order of four years – long enough for a child to walk with a migrating tribe. The moral prescription for monogamy, and therefor for higher reproduction rates associated with monogamy, was caused by (a) the agrarian mode of production and the family farming unit (b) the politically dangerous problem of single men unable to have access to sex – the source of most revolutions. Monogamy was imposed by religious leadership for these reasons – although we are still trying I think to link all that history together. It looks like it’s a natural evolution, not just the copying of an idea worldwide.

    CONCLUSION

    1) The strain on the rest of the planet’s biomass by our enormous population is pretty severe. It’s possible we’re more than twice the population that the planet can handle. We do not need more people. There are no pollution problems. There are few resource problems. There is a population problem.

    2) We have created an economic and political system of intergenerational redistribution that requires constant growth and constant new generations.

    3) Consumer capitalism seems to put a cap on uncontrolled population expansion.

    So it isn’t clear that we need to increase population. In fact, just the opposite. And we could do so, but our current system of redistribution is a system of dependencies that we can’t likely get out of without a political crisis.

    So the glass is half full (declining population) and half empty (we are dependent upon population growth that the earth cannot sustain, and which causes political infighting.).

    In these cases Atheism is correlative with lower reproduction in the upper classes, and CAUSAL with reproduction in the lower classes.

    I hope this makes sense.

    Curt Doolittle

    http://www.quora.com/Is-atheism-a-threat-to-humanity-due-to-its-lower-birth-rates/answer/Curt-Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2013-06-10 01:16:00 UTC

  • MARXISM DISTILLED: “For Adam Smith you have the division of labor and the invisi

    MARXISM DISTILLED:

    “For Adam Smith you have the division of labor and the invisible hand; for Ricardo, comparative advantage. Marx just seems to be an example of a thinker who took one incredibly wrong idea (The Labor Theory of Value) and fully worked out all of the logical consequences. Given that there’s no reason to believe in the labor theory of value, then most of Marx is just a complicated (although perhaps ingenious) dead end.” – Urstoff, from econlog


    Source date (UTC): 2013-06-09 02:18:00 UTC

  • OUCH “I was once challenged as to why the economics department didn’t teach Marx

    OUCH

    “I was once challenged as to why the economics department didn’t teach Marxist economics, I responded “we let the English department do that.”

    – Alex Tabarrok, GMU


    Source date (UTC): 2013-06-07 22:14:00 UTC