Is that why there are no other high trust people? The remoteness and homogeneity of the north sea?
Because that kind if gullibility is a catastrophic vulnerability?
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-21 08:16:00 UTC
Theme: Cooperation
-
Is that why there are no other high trust people? The remoteness and homogeneity
-
ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT I DIDN”T WANT TO UNDERSTAND My work has led me to this
ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT I DIDN”T WANT TO UNDERSTAND
My work has led me to this conclusion:
1) Humans must acquire – and acquire all sorts of things.
2) To acquire among others we negotiate.
3) In negotiation we justify.
4) We trade signals to to obtain discounts in exchange for status.
5) Truth (correspondence) about the real world provides a negotiating advantage.
6) Truth in social matters would disallow discounts obtained in exchange for status (or other opportunity)
I will try to expand that a bit, but it isn’t any more complicated than that.
Some people are much better at justifying than others. (verbal acuity)
Universalism is a form of justification that makes use of cognitive biases: Caldnin’s “weapons of influence” are means by which we justify (steal) in by taking advantage of cognitive biases.
Our genes are selfish, They need to be. And selfish genes win.Truth can be an advantage or a handicap. Justification can be an advantage or a handicap.
If you grasp this then it sort of ruins the whole moral nature of christendom. We are not families. If we treat one another as kin then, some families will be destroyed by other families.
Cooperation on means is mutually beneficial. But, universalism is a deceptive attack on the excellent and true. It is parasitism.
If that doesn’t ruin your philosophical day, then not a lot will.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-20 01:26:00 UTC
-
Reading a piece by Block, and exasperated at the amount of verbal justification
Reading a piece by Block, and exasperated at the amount of verbal justification as a means of producing overloading (deception).
Let me help you folks: The first rule of cooperation is “why don’t I just kill you and take your stuff?” Now a weakling might not like that, and a coward might not like that, and a free rider might not like that, but that’s simply a fact. It abuses northern european universalism, which is easily susceptible to overloading and suggestion that implies a breach of the universalist’s assumed trust.
But that is a mere cultural assumption that can be abused by ghetto pragmatism. Instead, we always have the ability to kill and take your stuff. Why wouldn’t we? Mostly because its either too rewarding to engage in trade, or not worth killing you and taking your stuff.
Verbal contradiction doesn’t hold any weight when the choice is between whether to kill you or to trade with you. Negotiation is not bound by logic. It’s bound by not doing what the other person will kill you for.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-18 15:04:00 UTC
-
THE BEAUTY OF TRUTH: TRUST AND ALL THAT COMES FROM IT Truth is such a beautiful
THE BEAUTY OF TRUTH: TRUST AND ALL THAT COMES FROM IT
Truth is such a beautiful thing. Not in the holier than thou, messianic, and judgemental sense. But in the wonder that results from our ability to rely upon it and trust our fellows. Only truth-tellers will invent science, medicine and freedom.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-17 20:02:00 UTC
-
**WHAT** PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE SUFFICIENT FOR A PEACEFUL CIVILIZATION? —The foun
**WHAT** PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE SUFFICIENT FOR A PEACEFUL CIVILIZATION?
—The foundation of a peaceful and prosperous civilization is “property rights are human rights and human rights are property rights.”— Bruce Koerber, Auburn University
Bruce,
While TRUE, in the sense that our laws and courts must resolve differences by property rights for us to live in a state of LEGAL LIBERTY, it is not true that property rights are the foundation of a peaceful and prosperous civilization, by any means, unless one enumerates all categories and cases of property, and provides for a means of their evolutionary expansion.
Property defined as that which is Intersubjectively Verifiable (as I have written about profusely) is absolutely, positively, insufficient for the formation of a peaceful polity, and even less so for a civilization, because it offers an insufficient suppression of unethical and immoral actions to prevent conflict, and therefore for demand for an authoritarian state.
Property must extended to the ethical and moral, which rothbardian ethics of the ghetto’s low trust society do not.
Primitive societies did not lack internal property rights any more than today’s primitive families lack internal property rights. The problem is extending the treatment we grant to others within the family across family, tribal, cultural, and racial bounds.
The libertarian fallacy is the presumption of the benevolence of human nature across familial, tribal, cultural, commercial bounds, which is contrary to all evidence from all civilizations, and all cultures at all points in time.
No people, lacking an authoritarian martial government can defend itself from parasitic conquest without
Rothbard took his ethics from the Medieval ghetto and like a good Cosmopolitan tried to justify the ethics of the ghetto just as germans the ethics of the land, and the english the ethics of the island. But while german ethics of the land, require nothing external to the polity but neighbors with different norms, the english ethics of the island require a sea to protect them, and the jewish ethic of the ghetto requires an authoritarian overlord to create a fictitious environment in which violence is not permitted but unethical and immoral behavior is tolerated as long as it does not lead to violence.
Humans require manners, ethics, morals, AND property rights to cooperate. Otherwise conflict or authoritarianism is preferable to the high transaction costs of trying to cooperate.
The germans were right albeit in the pseudoscientific authoritarian and rational language of Kant, and the anglos were right in their empirical and psychological language, yes, but wrong in that they assumed all men wished to, or were capable of, joining the aristocracy and incurring its responsibility.
But rothbard was the most wrong of all – in not only his language, but in his methods, logic and assumptions of man. Meaning that rothbard joins Spinoza, Marx, Freud, Cantor and even to some degree Popper, as manufacturer of elaborate verbal pseudosciences – the thinkers that doomed the 20th century to an age of pseudosciences, and destroyed the aristocratic libertarian ethos of western civilization.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev,Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-14 01:27:00 UTC
-
Aristocracy and Higher Tribalism (Instead of Democracy and Infighting.)
[A]ristocracy can cooperate on behalf of our tribes, no matter what tribe we belong to. All aristocracy speaks the same language, and all of us can work to better our own tribes with the help of aristocrats from other tribes. We have no false allegiances. We have no political agendas. Our agenda is merely the advancement of the economic status of our tribes. Aristocracy under ‘higher tribalism’ is a very ‘human’ form of government. No ideologies are needed. No justification for and search for power over others is needed. All wee need is do to negotiate on behalf of our tribes large or small. Under democracy our differences are a source of conflict. Under aristocracy our differences are a source of opportunity for mutual benefit. If we are trapped in an agrarian society all that we can really do is improve the land, and fight over the land if we want greater wealth. But under industrial capitalism, we are not constrained by the productivity of our land, but by the productivity of our people. And the productivity of our people is determined by the productivity of our institutions in assisting the people in cooperating, by making possible the voluntary organization of production. I would much rather live in a world filled with many enterprising aristocrats feeding off the status given them by their tribes and families, than I would in a world of bureaucrats living off the status obtained by creating conflict using ideology. And I am pretty sure that no moral man can justify any other arrangement for any reason other than the selfish accumulation of power, and the power to oppress others to conform to his will. All aristocracy requires is the grant of property rights and the reciprocal guarantee of those rights – and a militia consisting of all able bodied men equally willing to guarantee those rights.
-
Aristocracy and Higher Tribalism (Instead of Democracy and Infighting.)
[A]ristocracy can cooperate on behalf of our tribes, no matter what tribe we belong to. All aristocracy speaks the same language, and all of us can work to better our own tribes with the help of aristocrats from other tribes. We have no false allegiances. We have no political agendas. Our agenda is merely the advancement of the economic status of our tribes. Aristocracy under ‘higher tribalism’ is a very ‘human’ form of government. No ideologies are needed. No justification for and search for power over others is needed. All wee need is do to negotiate on behalf of our tribes large or small. Under democracy our differences are a source of conflict. Under aristocracy our differences are a source of opportunity for mutual benefit. If we are trapped in an agrarian society all that we can really do is improve the land, and fight over the land if we want greater wealth. But under industrial capitalism, we are not constrained by the productivity of our land, but by the productivity of our people. And the productivity of our people is determined by the productivity of our institutions in assisting the people in cooperating, by making possible the voluntary organization of production. I would much rather live in a world filled with many enterprising aristocrats feeding off the status given them by their tribes and families, than I would in a world of bureaucrats living off the status obtained by creating conflict using ideology. And I am pretty sure that no moral man can justify any other arrangement for any reason other than the selfish accumulation of power, and the power to oppress others to conform to his will. All aristocracy requires is the grant of property rights and the reciprocal guarantee of those rights – and a militia consisting of all able bodied men equally willing to guarantee those rights.
-
ARISTOCRACY AND HIGHER TRIBALISM Aristocracy can cooperate on behalf of our trib
ARISTOCRACY AND HIGHER TRIBALISM
Aristocracy can cooperate on behalf of our tribes, no matter what tribe we belong to. All aristocracy speaks the same language, and all of us can work to better our own tribes with the help of aristocrats from other tribes. We have no false allegiances. We have no political agendas. Our agenda is merely the advancement of the economic status of our tribes. Aristocracy under ‘higher tribalism’ is a very ‘human’ form of government. No ideologies are needed. No justification for and search for power over others is needed. All wee need is do to negotiate on behalf of our tribes large or small. Under democracy our differences are a source of conflict. Under aristocracy our differences are a source of opportunity for mutual benefit. If we are trapped in an agrarian society all that we can really do is improve the land, and fight over the land if we want greater wealth. But under industrial capitalism, we are not constrained by the productivity of our land, but by the productivity of our people. And the productivity of our people is determined by the productivity of our institutions in assisting the people in cooperating, by making possible the voluntary organization of production.
I would much rather live in a world filled with many enterprising aristocrats feeding off the status given them by their tribes and families, than I would in a world of bureaucrats living off the status obtained by creating conflict using ideology.
And I am pretty sure that no moral man can justify any other arrangement for any reason other than the selfish accumulation of power, and the power to oppress others to conform to his will.
All aristocracy requires is the grant of property rights and the reciprocal guarantee of those rights – and a militia consisting of all able bodied men equally willing to guarantee those rights.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-10 12:31:00 UTC
-
Manufacturing Liberty
(Guest Post by Eli Harman: ) [A]sking people to forego parasitism (if they’re weak) or predation (if they’re strong) is asking them to bear a substantial opportunity cost. They will only do so if someone stands ready to impose a higher actual cost for choosing to engage in them. This is what Curt Doolittle means when he says “liberty must be manufactured by violence.” Libertarians love to sing liberty’s praises, and there is much to be said in its favor. But it does not follow from this that liberty is always in everyone’s best interests. There are many people who stand to lose more from liberty than they would stand to gain. (And not just because they misperceive the situation.) There are still more people for whom the uncertainty over what they would stand to gain or lose would make desiring liberty irrational. The incentives that favor liberty do not exist by default, they must be proactively created. And in order for this to happen there must be people likely to benefit from liberty, strong people, capable people, wise people, intelligent people, responsible people, farsighted people; in short, aristocrats. And they must organize to impose liberty on the remainder by force, and in many cases, to their detriment, or to their enduring resentment. If liberty is thus to be manufactured, the problem of free-riding must also be overcome by institutional forms that deny the benefits of liberty to those unwilling to participate in its manufacture, and that preserves the benefits for the exclusive enjoyment of those so willing.
-
Manufacturing Liberty
(Guest Post by Eli Harman: ) [A]sking people to forego parasitism (if they’re weak) or predation (if they’re strong) is asking them to bear a substantial opportunity cost. They will only do so if someone stands ready to impose a higher actual cost for choosing to engage in them. This is what Curt Doolittle means when he says “liberty must be manufactured by violence.” Libertarians love to sing liberty’s praises, and there is much to be said in its favor. But it does not follow from this that liberty is always in everyone’s best interests. There are many people who stand to lose more from liberty than they would stand to gain. (And not just because they misperceive the situation.) There are still more people for whom the uncertainty over what they would stand to gain or lose would make desiring liberty irrational. The incentives that favor liberty do not exist by default, they must be proactively created. And in order for this to happen there must be people likely to benefit from liberty, strong people, capable people, wise people, intelligent people, responsible people, farsighted people; in short, aristocrats. And they must organize to impose liberty on the remainder by force, and in many cases, to their detriment, or to their enduring resentment. If liberty is thus to be manufactured, the problem of free-riding must also be overcome by institutional forms that deny the benefits of liberty to those unwilling to participate in its manufacture, and that preserves the benefits for the exclusive enjoyment of those so willing.