by Eli Harman It’s an article of faith among many libertarians that violence, and particularly aggressive violence, is necessarily negative sum. Prices contain information and markets broker them (in a subjective utility maximising way.) Violence only short circuits that, disrupts markets, destroy price signals, and makes everyone worse off. But this is not correct. In the first place, market transactions aren’t necessarily positive sum. If they are fraudulent or create negative externalities for those not party, they can be negative sum. And in the second place, violence is itself a signal, and transmits information. A threat expresses a subjective evaluation just as an offer does in the marketplace. “Hey, don’t do that or we’re going to fight.” And the initiation of hostilities demonstrates the authenticity of that information just as a payment does in the marketplace. One undertakes real cost, and real risk, in resorting to violence. (In contrast, whining, and playing the victim DO NOT demonstrate the authenticity of grievances in the way that resorting to violence does, and so are liable and likely to prove negative sum, if indulged, just as theft is liable and likely to prove negative sum, in the marketplace, because it does not make a sufficient demonstration and exchange of value.) Markets and prices on the one hand, and violence and threats on the other, are both necessary components to a stable, functional, and efficient society and economy. To suppress either wholly in favor of the other, would be to forego the benefits they offer, and to pervert incentives towards destructive outcomes. No society which does either will be able to compete, long term, against one which makes a more sensible tradeoff between them, making best use of information supplied by both exchange and conflict. Violence is the means of expressing the subjective evaluations not captured by price signals, which are as vast and varied as those which are.
Theme: Coercion
-
The Folly of our Guilt
by Bob Moran We’ve built societies where slavery is counter-productive (or at least much less efficient than the alternatives), but it doesn’t mean it’s never a valuable choice given some the circumstances. Just like high trust, the lack of slavery is part of our privileges. And yet, we are getting guilt tripped for what we built for ourselves and to a certain extent given to others. High trust: You’re mean because you don’t trust me like your own. –> Why don’t you have high trust societies? Why should we trust you? Wealth: You’re mean because you don’t give me the same stuff as your own. –> Why are you poor? Citizenship: You’re mean because you don’t give me the same rights as your own. –> Why are your laws retarded and corrupted? Land/Conquest: You’re mean because you took land / you don’t give me land –> Why couldn’t you hold land? Why can’t you take it? Slavery : You’re mean because you don’t (didn’t) treat me like your own. –> Did you prove we could? Did you enslave each other to be sold to ou
-
The Folly of our Guilt
by Bob Moran We’ve built societies where slavery is counter-productive (or at least much less efficient than the alternatives), but it doesn’t mean it’s never a valuable choice given some the circumstances. Just like high trust, the lack of slavery is part of our privileges. And yet, we are getting guilt tripped for what we built for ourselves and to a certain extent given to others. High trust: You’re mean because you don’t trust me like your own. –> Why don’t you have high trust societies? Why should we trust you? Wealth: You’re mean because you don’t give me the same stuff as your own. –> Why are you poor? Citizenship: You’re mean because you don’t give me the same rights as your own. –> Why are your laws retarded and corrupted? Land/Conquest: You’re mean because you took land / you don’t give me land –> Why couldn’t you hold land? Why can’t you take it? Slavery : You’re mean because you don’t (didn’t) treat me like your own. –> Did you prove we could? Did you enslave each other to be sold to ou
-
by Bob Moran We’ve built societies where slavery is counter-productive (or at le
by Bob Moran
We’ve built societies where slavery is counter-productive (or at least much less efficient than the alternatives), but it doesn’t mean it’s never a valuable choice given some the circumstances. Just like high trust, the lack of slavery is part of our privileges.
And yet, we are getting guilt tripped for what we built for ourselves and to a certain extent given to others.
High trust: You’re mean because you don’t trust me like your own. –> Why don’t you have high trust societies? Why should we trust you?
Wealth: You’re mean because you don’t give me the same stuff as your own. –> Why are you poor?
Citizenship: You’re mean because you don’t give me the same rights as your own. –> Why are your laws retarded and corrupted?
Land/Conquest: You’re mean because you took land / you don’t give me land –> Why couldn’t you hold land? Why can’t you take it?
Slavery : You’re mean because you don’t (didn’t) treat me like your own. –> Did you prove we could? Did you enslave each other to be sold to outsiders? Did you lack the force to defend yourself?
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 14:10:00 UTC
-
By Eli Harman My argument against women’s suffrage depends on only 3 points. 1)
By Eli Harman
My argument against women’s suffrage depends on only 3 points.
1) Voting either directs violence, or is a substitute for it.
2) The preponderance of actual violence is supplied by men. And the preponderance of potential violence is *not supplied* by men.
3) Men and women vote differently, on average.
All three of these points are, I think, incontrovertible.
There is certainly much more which could be said on the matter. But this is all that actually needs to be said, to show that women’s suffrage is unstable, and necessarily ends in violence.
For democracy can never reconcile conflicting interests of priorities. It can only privilege some, at the expense of others. And the more women vote to advance their interests, or impose their priorities, at the expense of men’s, the more tension will build. And it can only build until it breaks, because it is men who are asked to supply the actual violence which carries the outcomes of elections into effect, or to refrain from potential violence to prevent the outcomes of elections from being carried into effect.
But we don’t have to do either.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 11:49:00 UTC
-
THE INFORMATION CONTENT OF VIOLENCE: It’s an article of faith among many liberta
THE INFORMATION CONTENT OF VIOLENCE:
It’s an article of faith among many libertarians that violence, and particularly aggressive violence, is necessarily negative sum.
Prices contain information and markets broker them (in a subjective utility maximising way.) Violence only short circuits that, disrupts markets, destroy price signals, and makes everyone worse off.
But this is not correct.
In the first place, market transactions aren’t necessarily positive sum. If they are fraudulent or create negative externalities for those not party, they can be negative sum.
And in the second place, violence is itself a signal, and transmits information. A threat expresses a subjective evaluation just as an offer does in the marketplace. “Hey, don’t do that or we’re going to fight.”
And the initiation of hostilities demonstrates the authenticity of that information just as a payment does in the marketplace. One undertakes real cost, and real risk, in resorting to violence.
(In contrast, whining, and playing the victim DO NOT demonstrate the authenticity of grievances in the way that resorting to violence does, and so are liable and likely to prove negative sum, if indulged, just as theft is liable and likely to prove negative sum, in the marketplace, because it does not make a sufficient demonstration and exchange of value.)
Markets and prices on the one hand, and violence and threats on the other, are both necessary components to a stable, functional, and efficient society and economy. To suppress either wholly in favor of the other, would be to forego the benefits they offer, and to pervert incentives towards destructive outcomes.
No society which does either will be able to compete, long term, against one which makes a more sensible tradeoff between them, making best use of information supplied by both exchange and conflict.
Violence is the means of expressing the subjective evaluations not captured by price signals, which are as vast and varied as those which are.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 11:49:00 UTC
-
FULL ACCOUNTING OF POLITICAL ORDERS (read it and weep) ***Democracy and diversit
FULL ACCOUNTING OF POLITICAL ORDERS
(read it and weep)
***Democracy and diversity restored levantine and semitic tribal conflict to european high trust homogenous societies.
In creating a high trust competitive polity with a high standard of living, it appears that constructing a kinship order rather than a corporate order, is superior during the majority of history.
It appears that corporate orders are means of merely extracting accumulated capital from homogenous peoples, and the emergence of a corporate order is evidence of predation or parasitism within or from without.
So as far as I know, it is not possible to survive a test of full accounting under a corporate order, and it is only possible to survive at test of full accounting under a kinship order.***
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 09:24:00 UTC
-
LIFE COUNTER-STRIKE PISTOL ROUND…. (omg) Guy runs around with a pistol, silenc
http://www.machovideo.com/15755/isis-executing-people-with-silencer/REAL LIFE COUNTER-STRIKE PISTOL ROUND…. (omg)
Guy runs around with a pistol, silencer, and gopro, doing surprise hits one after the other. Insanity….
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 18:30:00 UTC
-
EQUALITY
http://vidmax.com/video/155672-Brutal-footage-shows-bouncer-punching-woman-in-the-faceMORE EQUALITY
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 18:16:00 UTC
-
“Friend” of mine. Serb. Christian. Been in the states twenty years. Points at th
“Friend” of mine. Serb. Christian. Been in the states twenty years. Points at the television. “You see this guy? Back home. We took communists. We put hooks in them here. (Points at his pectorals.) And we hung them from the towers. So people could see them – from all around the city. We make sure they know. They know this is what we will do to them. ….. We catch a thief. We make him go get everything he stole – fast. Or we do the same to him. Too much freedom is not good for us.”
Fuck, I love eastern europe.
Yeah. Russians are better. They make it much worse. Then they tell your family, your friends, and maybe show them a body part or two.
We are men. We rule. Or we are ruled. The question is. Who will rule better than we?
We have let our women rule us. Our Lawyers rule us. Our bankers rule us.
And what has this gotten us?
Violence. Rule by violence. Rule by natural law with violence, and we will have little need to use it.
And at present, we have a vast need to use it.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 14:19:00 UTC