The difference between the structure of my arguments, and the more common of those in moral philosophy, is one that is common in western philosophy. Because western philosophy was created and developed by its aristocratic classes, and those classes that performed sufficiently to afford the luxury of philosophy, and sought enfranchisement. Namely: necessity. Marx, for all his error, does not make this mistake, nor does perhaps our most influential moral philosopher: Adam Smith against whom Marx, like Freud against Nietzsche, Marx is a reactionary. So, the difference in our approaches to philosophy, is that I start with necessity, and then choose preference from the available options. From that position I take the mutually moral and scientific requirements that (a) it is only moral to compel necessities not preferences. (b) the only moral preferential political action is one that others voluntarily comply with. (c) the evidence is that most of our attempts to interfere with social orders, other than increasing participation in them, has proven to be a failure when we attempt to achieve ends, rather than provide means. There are many preferences that we could seek to pursue, the externalities of which are counter productive to the prosperity that decreases the possibility of choices. As such, philosophical discourse on luxuries is interesting. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that what we are discussing is the luxuries that our implementation of necessities has made possible. Discussing luxuries is a nice parlor game. It is like young men fantasizing about which supercar they can buy if they save for the next ten years. But I do not work on philosophy for entertainment. I work on it for the purpose of identifying possible solutions to looming problems: what is necessary for continued expansion of our ability to cooperate in a division of knowledge and labor so vast that we can exist with such wealth?
Theme: Coercion
-
Necessary, Preferential, and Luxury Properties of Government
A) NECESSARY PROPERTIES The NECESSARY properties of of a government are 1) provide a means of resolving differences without the use of violence (ie: to create a monopoly of violence within a geography.) 2) To provide a means of resolving differences requires a definition of property rights. 3) To prohibit alternative definitions of property rights from being imposed by force, theft or fraud, (or immigration.) These are the minimum properties of a government. B ) ADVANTAGEOUS PROPERTIES In addition to these properties, it may also be possible for a group of people to afford to also have government engage in the following: 4) To provide a means of investing in commons (human and physical infrastructure) by prohibiting free-riding, privatization, and competition when investing in commons. 5) To provide a means of cooperation between classes where privatization, free riding, rent seeking and competition prevent cooperation between classes. 6) To reduce both transaction costs and fraud by implementing weights, measures and currency. 7) To perform as an insurer of last resort against catastrophes. These are advantageous properties of government. C) PROPERTIES THAT ARE LUXURIES In addition to these properties, it may be possible for a group of people to afford to also have the government engage in the following LUXURIES: 8 ) Redistribution of all kinds, both in services, and in direct payments. 9) Inter-temporal redistribution from young to old, rather than saving and lending from old to young. (But this is very fragile.) These are LUXURIES that can be provided by some governments under rare circumstances in exceptional periods of time, where malthusian and group selection problems have been temporarily held at bay by technological innovation. The government is not the source of the ‘good things’. The courts, under the common law and property rights is the source of ‘good things’. The government we have today, has destroyed the common law, the rule of law, and created both corporatism and socialism. And we now suffer between two factions that try to control the government for corporatist or socialist means.
-
Necessary, Preferential, and Luxury Properties of Government
A) NECESSARY PROPERTIES The NECESSARY properties of of a government are 1) provide a means of resolving differences without the use of violence (ie: to create a monopoly of violence within a geography.) 2) To provide a means of resolving differences requires a definition of property rights. 3) To prohibit alternative definitions of property rights from being imposed by force, theft or fraud, (or immigration.) These are the minimum properties of a government. B ) ADVANTAGEOUS PROPERTIES In addition to these properties, it may also be possible for a group of people to afford to also have government engage in the following: 4) To provide a means of investing in commons (human and physical infrastructure) by prohibiting free-riding, privatization, and competition when investing in commons. 5) To provide a means of cooperation between classes where privatization, free riding, rent seeking and competition prevent cooperation between classes. 6) To reduce both transaction costs and fraud by implementing weights, measures and currency. 7) To perform as an insurer of last resort against catastrophes. These are advantageous properties of government. C) PROPERTIES THAT ARE LUXURIES In addition to these properties, it may be possible for a group of people to afford to also have the government engage in the following LUXURIES: 8 ) Redistribution of all kinds, both in services, and in direct payments. 9) Inter-temporal redistribution from young to old, rather than saving and lending from old to young. (But this is very fragile.) These are LUXURIES that can be provided by some governments under rare circumstances in exceptional periods of time, where malthusian and group selection problems have been temporarily held at bay by technological innovation. The government is not the source of the ‘good things’. The courts, under the common law and property rights is the source of ‘good things’. The government we have today, has destroyed the common law, the rule of law, and created both corporatism and socialism. And we now suffer between two factions that try to control the government for corporatist or socialist means.
-
Is Philosophy A Vehicle For Theft?
Is nearly all of philosophy then, outside of logic, an artful construct for the purpose of justifying theft? One can justify suppression of, prevention of, and restitution for, the taking of discounts. (thefts) One can justify the selection of one priority of investment over another. But one cannot argue for the necessity of a monopoly of investments. Nor the mandatory enforcement of participation in investments, other than the suppression of free riding. One can argue the necessity for a homogeneity – monopoly – of property rights for the purpose of logically resolving disputes over property and contract – albeit, private property solves that problem, and articulated shareholder rights, retains that ability even under complexity. But once a monopoly of property rights exists, one cannot argue the necessity for a monopoly of law making. In fact, logic and evidence suggest precisely the opposite is true: that laws evolve and evolve best under the common law, since they must be interpreted by ordinary citizens, and are open to constant revision without external approval as the world evolves. The failure of the common law was (a) its usurpation by the state, and (b) failure to define property rights sufficiently in the face of industrialization. (c) its use by the middle class to dispossess the aristocracy, and consequential use by the proletarians and feminists to dispossess the middle classes. Philosophy is quite simple really. It’s only complicated if you’re trying to lie. And theft requires lying. And lying is best covered by obscurity. Cheers.
-
Is Philosophy A Vehicle For Theft?
Is nearly all of philosophy then, outside of logic, an artful construct for the purpose of justifying theft? One can justify suppression of, prevention of, and restitution for, the taking of discounts. (thefts) One can justify the selection of one priority of investment over another. But one cannot argue for the necessity of a monopoly of investments. Nor the mandatory enforcement of participation in investments, other than the suppression of free riding. One can argue the necessity for a homogeneity – monopoly – of property rights for the purpose of logically resolving disputes over property and contract – albeit, private property solves that problem, and articulated shareholder rights, retains that ability even under complexity. But once a monopoly of property rights exists, one cannot argue the necessity for a monopoly of law making. In fact, logic and evidence suggest precisely the opposite is true: that laws evolve and evolve best under the common law, since they must be interpreted by ordinary citizens, and are open to constant revision without external approval as the world evolves. The failure of the common law was (a) its usurpation by the state, and (b) failure to define property rights sufficiently in the face of industrialization. (c) its use by the middle class to dispossess the aristocracy, and consequential use by the proletarians and feminists to dispossess the middle classes. Philosophy is quite simple really. It’s only complicated if you’re trying to lie. And theft requires lying. And lying is best covered by obscurity. Cheers.
-
THE FICTION OF THE MORALITY OF GETTO PROPERTY RIGHTS Lets get this straight OK?
THE FICTION OF THE MORALITY OF GETTO PROPERTY RIGHTS
Lets get this straight OK?
If you agree to not engage in murder, violence, destruction, theft, and fraud, it’s because you’re afraid of not doing so. It’s not because you’re a good person. It’s because you can so easily be caught.
If you agree not to engage in omission, obscurantism, impediment, then you’re doing it for ethical reasons: not stealing from the people you interact with.
If you agree not to engage in externalization, free riding, rent seeking, corruption, conspiracy then you’re doing it for moral reasons: not stealing from your entire polity.
If you agree not to engage in military conquest, overbreeding, immigration without assimilation, or religious conquest, then you’re doing it because you care about not stealing from other polities.
Lets do away with the fiction that respect for life and property is anything more than fear of retaliation. It’s not moral or ethical. It’s just necessary. Living a moral life means not stealing from any one, ever, under any circumstances, no matter how easy it is.
Lets put an end to ghetto ethic, and return our definition of morality to its aristocratic origins: universal suppression of taking from others except in fully informed warrantied voluntary exchange.
Propertarianism is the protestant ethic of the northern european people written in Anglo analytic philosophy: the language of science.
Conservatism when it applies to the protestant ethic may be stated in ARATIONAL terms, but it is, to date, the most scientific system of ethics yet devised. We must prove something works first then adopt it. Not adopt it before it is proven.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-10 01:58:00 UTC
-
(Serious question, not criticism) So, in the states, the complaint is, that we n
(Serious question, not criticism)
So, in the states, the complaint is, that we no longer own land, because the state progressively taxes our land on its value.
This means that we are permanent renters, and that you move into the city for low opportunity costs, and out of the city for low cost of living.
The appreciation in value of the property goes to both the city that levies the taxes, and to the homeowner or business owner as incentive to maintain and improve the property.
The title registries and private administration of the land merely distribute the cost of administration to private individuals internal to the transactions. Which is one of the reasons anglo countries have lower corruption than public administered land.
So is the argument that we don’t tax ENOUGH? because as far as I can tell, we already accomplish this project with progressive taxation.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-08 05:36:00 UTC
-
“War is the health of the state.” — Randolph Bourn
“War is the health of the state.” — Randolph Bourn
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-04 02:26:00 UTC
-
CAN WE DEFINE TERRORISM? SURE WE CAN It is a fundamental statement of logic that
CAN WE DEFINE TERRORISM? SURE WE CAN
It is a fundamental statement of logic that if you cannot describe a term in operational language then one of the following statements is true:
1) You do not understand what you are talking about, and should refrain from talking about what you do not understand, until you do understand it.
2) Something is false with your criteria for satisfying the definition. (There are no paradoxes.)
3) You are trying to make facts suit your theoretical preference rather than modify your theoretical preference to correspond to the facts.
4) You are relying on normative rather than necessary properties.
5) You are trying to justify the use of a morally or politically loaded term to suit your purposes as a means of free-riding on pop-sentiments.
If you cannot reduce your statements to operational language then you are engaging in self deception, justification, the deception of others, or all three.
Academic, Postmodern, pseudo-science relies on all five of these criteria.
Am I left with the only possible conclusion, already, in just one week, that the class is not an honest pursuit of the truth, but a personal marketing campaign for justification of that which is not understood?
Terrorism is, in both common usage, and etymological origin, a pejorative criticism. Rebellion is not a matter for criticism, but a demonstration of the failure of the government. Either because the government fails to answer the needs of some group, fails to publicly invalidate the needs of some group, or seeks dominion over some group by monopoly fiat that should be given right of secession to choose some OTHER order more beneficial to that group’s sentiments.
The use of violence by those under the influence of the monopoly state, against state (political, bureaucratic and military), state-corporate (finance, banking, oil, infrastructure and transportation- the economy is an act of rebellion, and is a necessary and JUST USE of violence because under a monopoly, and equally under majority rule monopoly, one has no choice. If one has no choice, then rebellion is the only possible action one can take. Otherwise we say that majorities can do whatever they wish and that as such all state actions sanctioned by the majority, or even just the majority of their political representatives, no matter how immoral, unethical, or disadvantageous to some group is legitimate.)
Violence is not equivalent to terror. We may be afraid of it. But that we are afraid is a false equivalency. The purpose of Terror is the demonstration of power for the purpose of ‘marketing’. The purpose of Rebellion is the demonstration of power for the purpose of marketing marketing. Given enough marketing, the users of violence, whether terrorists or rebels hope to generate demand for political solutions to their complaints, that the state satisfies BOTH the demands of the users of violence, rebels or terrorists, AND the demands of the public for a solution to the violence.
The international charter of human rights consists almost entirely of enumerated anglo-american private property rights, plus four ambitions that states are chartered with seeking to solve if possible, as a limited nod to the communist movement that was popular at the time. By enacting this charter we state that STATES will hold other states accountable for the treatment of their citizens. However, we also, by ancient practice, hold states accountable for the actions of their citizens. (If your state houses terrorists then you are responsible for the consequences. (Just as the desert housed raiders in the arab conquest of the Byzantine and Sassanid empires.)
Furthermore, the USA participates in terribly confusing rhetoric but it’s policy has been consistent in the postwar era:
(a) The USA always supports the right of self determination wherever strategically and economically possible to do so (Saudis and Israelis the notable exceptions.)
(b) A democratically elected government is de-facto a legitimate government.
(c) A population can elect whatever government that it chooses to.
(d) The USA will hold the government accountable for it’s actions as stewards of the charter of human rights, and the international pattern of finance and trade, where the only tolerable means of competition is in the market for mutually voluntary exchange. This means that USA will punish the government and it’s civilians for violations of this charter until the people select a government that does respect those rights and obligations.
So Terrorism must satisfy these three criteria:
(a) violence against civilians or cultural symbols and icons
(b) that disrupts the predictable assumption of safety.
(c) for the purpose of generating demand for political policy.
(d) by non state actors.
One of the ways we reduced product tampering was to stop reporting on it. If we didn’t report on terrorism the impact would not be as dramatic but would follow that trend. (A.C. Nielsen was influential in demonstrating that the problem was providing a venue.)
Rebellion must satisfy the following criteria:
(a) violence against military, political, economic and symbolic targets.
(b) that disrupts the assumption of sufficient legitimacy of the government
(c) for the purpose of generating demand for policy
(d) by citizens under the control of a monopoly government
Warfare constitutes the remaining state actions.
Crime constitutes the remaining actions by the citizenry.
A normal 2×2 grid is sufficient for determining whether an action constitutes crime, rebellion, terrorism and war – in that order.
This classification prevents the false attribution of legitimacy to the state by classifying crime and rebellion as terrorism.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-02 09:41:00 UTC
-
UKRAINE UPDATE: The main road, Kreshatik, from the waterfront and old town Podil
UKRAINE UPDATE:
The main road, Kreshatik, from the waterfront and old town Podil is barricaded and guarded. The barricade is two stories high and about as wide.
There are two other less direct routes into town but thats the main artery from this side.
I didnt get a picture. :(.
Freaky.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-01 08:12:00 UTC