Theme: Commons

  • FOLLOWUP TO COSTS Now that we have that out of the way. Governments can attempt

    FOLLOWUP TO COSTS
    Now that we have that out of the way. Governments can attempt to accelerate the production of informal and formal commons that will achieve these cost reductions. However the negative affects compound with the number of people and degree of authority necessary to alter the behavior of the population – ie: secret police are a really bad idea but they work in the short term.

    The solution for all polites is develop a nationalist military with greater alliance to the common good than to the family or clan, and once this is produced, use the same people to gradually produce rule of law by the natural law until the rest of the polity adapts out of simple self interest.

    Until you create nationalism you cannot create the absence of corruption necessary for a high trust polity that is in turn necessary for the prosperity that produces that reduction of risk and increase in choice that all peoples desire.

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @PolybiusOfNorth


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-07 17:22:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1854575228426534912

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1854559349445722286

  • WHAT GOVERNMENTS DO: (Costs) Oh. So at eight o’clock in the morning, before I’ve

    WHAT GOVERNMENTS DO: (Costs)

    Oh. So at eight o’clock in the morning, before I’ve finished my first cup of coffee, you want me to answer a really hard question? lol πŸ˜‰

    Here:

    Effectively, all governments maximize the use of existing technology to monitor and regulate the behavior of all citizens the the point of diminishing returns and then into burdensome costs that reverse the utility of centralizing costs (government) for the purpose of suppressing the hierarchy and network of rents (frictions) that occur in its absence.

    This is a universal law of government behavior. Governments suppress the hierarchy of rents (unearned takings on the work of others) in exchange for producing monetary and trade velocity, reducing transaction and risk costs (and the many other costs).

    It’s this reduction in costs that makes economies capable of producing trust in a complex division of labor over longer and more complex production cycles.

    It’s hard for we humans to think in the ‘via negativa’ like this – but we can understand that we can think in gaining knowledge (positiva) or removing ignorance (negativa). The same is true in economies. We can think in terms of facilitating trust and cooperation or removing costs that impeded trust and cooperation.

    Just for yucks, here is a hierarchical list of costs that people, polities, and governments can seek to reduce in order to create prosperity:

    1. Transaction Costs (Immediate, Perceptible)
    Costs of negotiating, executing, and enforcing agreements. These include direct expenses like fees and the time spent on bargaining.
    2. Opportunity Costs (Immediate, Perceptible)
    The value of the next best alternative foregone when making a decision. These are often felt as a direct trade-off in resource allocation.
    3. Information Costs
    Costs of obtaining, processing, and verifying necessary information for decision-making, including research and communication overhead.
    4. Coordination Costs
    Costs of aligning efforts, goals, and activities among individuals or organizations to ensure smooth execution.
    5. Compliance and Regulatory Costs
    Costs associated with meeting legal, regulatory, or internal policy requirements, such as audits, documentation, or legal counsel.
    6. Switching Costs
    Costs incurred when changing suppliers, technologies, or operational dependencies. These can be tangible (training, setup) or intangible (loss of integration benefits).
    7. Agency Costs
    Costs arising from conflicts of interest between principals and agents, including monitoring, incentivizing, or resolving misaligned objectives.
    8. Adaptation Costs
    Costs of adjusting operations, strategies, or resources in response to external changes such as market shifts, regulations, or technological advancements.
    9. Sunk Costs
    Costs that have already been incurred and cannot be recovered. Though economically irrelevant for future decisions, they often psychologically influence actors.
    10. Redundancy and Buffer Costs
    Costs of maintaining excess capacity or resources as insurance against uncertainty or risk.
    11. Complexity Costs
    Costs that arise from managing increasingly intricate systems or processes, leading to inefficiencies and reduced agility.
    12. Intertemporal Costs
    Costs resulting from decisions that affect future states, such as delayed investment returns or the erosion of future options due to present commitments.
    13. Externality Costs
    Costs or benefits imposed on third parties due to an economic activity, often unnoticed or unaccounted for by the primary actors.
    14. Cultural and Social Capital Costs (Remote, Imperceptible)
    Costs associated with building, maintaining, or repairing trust, reputation, and relationships, which are crucial but often difficult to quantify or perceive immediately.

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @PolybiusOfNorth


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-07 17:16:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1854573617511907328

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1854559349445722286

  • RT @William68332190: @RollofNormandy @FromKulak @curtdoolittle Libertarians gene

    RT @William68332190: @RollofNormandy @FromKulak @curtdoolittle Libertarians generally don’t acknowledge public property which is just as va…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-24 16:54:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1838623001971204579

  • “Commons-ism” is the result of individual heroism in the production of commons i

    “Commons-ism” is the result of individual heroism in the production of commons in exchange for status and attention, and the freedom of the individual to engage in that production of commons. However, we in the west are unaware that the concept does not even exist in other…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-19 14:57:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1836781766780014940

    Reply addressees: @rikstorey @KeithWoodsYT

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1836777279415849081

  • Democratic government. At least, the legislative wing of it, is reducible to the

    Democratic government. At least, the legislative wing of it, is reducible to the institutionalization of the tragedy of the commons, where the consumers (renters) seek to maximize temporal consumption to the destruction of the utility productivity and fruits of the commons.

    Legislatures should sit, as in texas, for just a few weeks a year – even a few weeks every few years.

    Push responsibility back into the private sector and when funding for a commons cannot be produced there, then let them propose to the parliaments as we presently do to venture capitalists.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-10 16:44:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833547019027132416

  • “Popular responsibility is* civic responsibility in recognition of the high/full

    –“Popular responsibility is* civic responsibility in recognition of the high/full value of the commons.”–
    Yes. A poor word choice in the moment. Thank you.

    The problem with ‘is’:
    We avoid the use of ‘pretense of knowledge’ words. The verb to-be, or the copula, consisting of: is, are, was, were, am, will be are the equivalent of ‘stuff’ or ‘thing’: empty of meaning. The verb to be should be expressed as testimony to the means of existence. In other words, “the cat is black” should be stated as “I observe (or see) a cat (or housecat) whose fur appears to reflect the color black.”

    almost all sophistry is constructed by the creating of a false association using the term ‘is’. πŸ˜‰

    Reply addressees: @truthb4face


    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-02 21:23:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1830718210586423298

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1830631622506684789

  • Individualism (libertarianism) – individual responsibility (Ascendant Masculine)

    Individualism (libertarianism) – individual responsibility (Ascendant Masculine)
    vs
    Commons-ism (Classical Liberalism – popular responsibility (Established Masculine)
    vs
    Communism (Socialism) – state responsibility (Feminine)


    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-02 13:31:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1830599387330076844

  • Correct. Libertarianism is the ghetto ethics of teh pale of settlement: parasiti

    Correct. Libertarianism is the ghetto ethics of teh pale of settlement: parasitism on the commons produced by others without paying for that commons with either behavior or contribution.

    (Not that mike needs me to confirm anything he says. πŸ˜‰ )


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-20 03:21:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1825734959652347942

    Reply addressees: @Cernovich

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1825715359661654144

  • Basic criticism is that rothbardian ethics are jewish ethics of the pale, escapi

    Basic criticism is that rothbardian ethics are jewish ethics of the pale, escaping responsibility for commons on the one hand and leaving open usury and baiting into hazard, and evasion of liabilty on the other.

    Basic criticism of hoppe, is that his ethics are those of the german Free Cities – which like both the jews of the pale, or the german free cities, or every other libertarian ‘fantasy’ depend on an empire letting a commercial trading city self regulate as long as it pays taxes to the crown.

    Both of these contrast with anglo ethics which require both commons, and self regulation, and self defense.

    Reply addressees: @Hail__To_You


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-10 04:23:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810892679867199488

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810882160787661000

  • Mises ignored the commons, and not only physical commons, but especially informa

    Mises ignored the commons, and not only physical commons, but especially informal and formal commons. Hayek demonstrated commons were an extraordinary asset, and that were the most important asset. And that wester civ outcompeted otehrs because of it’s high trust ability to build commons that reduced costs for all. So while Mises and rothbard are easy to understand they are also a false promise just as much as marxists propose a false promise.

    Reply addressees: @femboy_swift


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-09 16:35:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810714436979888129

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810713189060858268