Theme: Cooperation

  • I’m going to correct Hans a bit here by saying that human cooperation is the res

    I’m going to correct Hans a bit here by saying that human cooperation is the result of these properties:

    1) the differences in abilities among men.

    2) the geographical distribution of nature-given factors of production.

    3) the local structure of production: the division of knowledge and labor.

    4) the local structure of the family and inheritance rights.

    5) the distribution of property rights between the individual, family, group and the commons.

    6) the degree of suppression of, and intolerance for, free riding both in and out of family.

    7) calculative, cooperative technology available for economic signaling and coordination. (objective truth, numbers, money, prices, interest, writing, contract, and accounting).

    8) The use of formal institutions to perpetuate these constraints.

    9) The competition from groups with alternate structures of production, family, inheritance, property rights, free riding, cooperative technologies, and formal institutions.

    10) The recognition of these facts. (I question whether this last one is true.)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-15 11:40:00 UTC

  • Does Voluntary Segregation Answer Parasitism?

    To the extent that Rothbard has made statements supporting voluntary segregation, it seems there’s no conflict between the two of you. His city state might be a little more tolerant or bazaar ethics than yours, but beyond that, I don’t get the conflict. Perhaps you’re not here addressing his acceptance of voluntary segregation and are instead addressing the ethics he claimed were universal. Is that it? — Roman,

    Partly. 1) Yes, it’s an argument against universalism. But more importantly, it’s argument against whether ANYONE, in practice, would make the rational choice to live in a world of very high transaction costs (unethical and immoral), instead of a world of very low transaction costs but very high costs (prohibition on all parasitism). So, I’m saying that a ghetto can exist as an offshoot of more advanced polities (most surviving hunter gatherers were outcasts from their civilizations for example.) But you cannot build a civilization out of a ghetto. It’s not historically evident that it’s possible. And it’s not praxeologically rational that you could. 2) Yes, we can make a claim that a group’s reproductive strategy, in order to be competitive, requires that they engage in parasitism.(That’s rothbard’s strategy.) We can claim that another group in order to suit its reproductive strategy, would suppress ALL parasitism. We can, as with the extended and inbred family, preserve familial parasitism as a form of insurance, and actively advocate external parasitism. 3) It is extremely hard to demonstrate why anyone would live in the ghetto who had a choice to live in the palace. BUT i am not sure what the difference is between a prison system and a ghetto other than the victorian and progress era illusion of reform. 4) I pair voluntary segregation with the right of ostracization. I think ‘voluntary segregation’ on its own is another attempt to justify rothbardian parasitism (ghetto ethics). NET NET Since any group of people will rationally choose to reduce transaction costs via a monopoly government even if it is high cost to them. The only POSSIBLE outcome of rothbardian ethics is not a voluntary society, it’s a voluntary ghetto. A ghetto that is also the refuge of those we reject through ostracization. And within that ghetto a certain set of skills will develop and certain individuals will benefit from parasitic competition against other parasitic peoples. It should become clear at this point where rothbard got his ethics from. Habituated, adapted, cultural memory of the ghetto. Rothbardian ethics are parasitic.

  • Does Voluntary Segregation Answer Parasitism?

    To the extent that Rothbard has made statements supporting voluntary segregation, it seems there’s no conflict between the two of you. His city state might be a little more tolerant or bazaar ethics than yours, but beyond that, I don’t get the conflict. Perhaps you’re not here addressing his acceptance of voluntary segregation and are instead addressing the ethics he claimed were universal. Is that it? — Roman,

    Partly. 1) Yes, it’s an argument against universalism. But more importantly, it’s argument against whether ANYONE, in practice, would make the rational choice to live in a world of very high transaction costs (unethical and immoral), instead of a world of very low transaction costs but very high costs (prohibition on all parasitism). So, I’m saying that a ghetto can exist as an offshoot of more advanced polities (most surviving hunter gatherers were outcasts from their civilizations for example.) But you cannot build a civilization out of a ghetto. It’s not historically evident that it’s possible. And it’s not praxeologically rational that you could. 2) Yes, we can make a claim that a group’s reproductive strategy, in order to be competitive, requires that they engage in parasitism.(That’s rothbard’s strategy.) We can claim that another group in order to suit its reproductive strategy, would suppress ALL parasitism. We can, as with the extended and inbred family, preserve familial parasitism as a form of insurance, and actively advocate external parasitism. 3) It is extremely hard to demonstrate why anyone would live in the ghetto who had a choice to live in the palace. BUT i am not sure what the difference is between a prison system and a ghetto other than the victorian and progress era illusion of reform. 4) I pair voluntary segregation with the right of ostracization. I think ‘voluntary segregation’ on its own is another attempt to justify rothbardian parasitism (ghetto ethics). NET NET Since any group of people will rationally choose to reduce transaction costs via a monopoly government even if it is high cost to them. The only POSSIBLE outcome of rothbardian ethics is not a voluntary society, it’s a voluntary ghetto. A ghetto that is also the refuge of those we reject through ostracization. And within that ghetto a certain set of skills will develop and certain individuals will benefit from parasitic competition against other parasitic peoples. It should become clear at this point where rothbard got his ethics from. Habituated, adapted, cultural memory of the ghetto. Rothbardian ethics are parasitic.

  • Trust: A Definition

    “Your confidence that another will act with a necessary degree of reciprocity (mutually beneficial) for the matter at hand, despite the opportunity to act out of an equal degree of self interest.” This definition addresses the spectrum of low trust exchanges to consanguineous interactions to high trust mutual insurance. Most definitions assume an equality of relations that never actually exists and as such those other definitions always seem wanting. It also explains when we are actually trusting someone, versus asking for a donation. Trust is a matter of reciprocity given the relationship you have to someone else.

  • Trust: A Definition

    “Your confidence that another will act with a necessary degree of reciprocity (mutually beneficial) for the matter at hand, despite the opportunity to act out of an equal degree of self interest.” This definition addresses the spectrum of low trust exchanges to consanguineous interactions to high trust mutual insurance. Most definitions assume an equality of relations that never actually exists and as such those other definitions always seem wanting. It also explains when we are actually trusting someone, versus asking for a donation. Trust is a matter of reciprocity given the relationship you have to someone else.

  • WHY ARE WHITE PEOPLE STUPID? Trust. Trust is actually in our genes. For a homoge

    WHY ARE WHITE PEOPLE STUPID?

    Trust.

    Trust is actually in our genes.

    For a homogenous population that’s a good thing.

    In a diverse population, it’s genetically maladaptive.

    White people are willing to fall head over heels for every pseudoscientific nonsense that any one throws at them. Peter and Paul, Augustine, Rousseau, Kant, Marx, Freud, Cantor, and the whole lot of academic postmodernists.

    We have the high trust society because we are both less impulsive and more willing to trust than any other genetic group on earth. We even used to be smarter than the rest of them. But no longer.

    Stupid white people. Unfortunately, I love my people. Even if they are stupid. Gullible, trusting, victims of every empty verbalistic pseudoscience anyone comes up with.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-15 06:00:00 UTC

  • The Struggle To Extend In-Group Trust To Outgroup Members

    The ongoing struggle to extend in-group trust to out-group members. Or, the ongoing struggle to extend the cooperation demonstrated between consanguineous relations, to beyond those relations, such that it is possible for us to evolve a division of knowledge and labor, in which there is as little risk of misappropriation of our efforts in the market, as there is within the consanguineous family. While inside the family free riding is a form of mutual insurance, manageable by threat of deprivation and ostracization, the fact remains that one’s genetic kin prosper even at the cost of unequal distribution of gains and losses. But outside the kin, the same free riding, and unequal distribution of gains and losses, is neither of benefit to kin, nor controllable by ostracization and deprivation. There is always another group to prey upon if one is mobile enough. And it takes but a minority of predators engaging in immoral activity to render all external trust intolerable, and thereby undermine the people’s economy, polity, and competitive survival. Simple property If it was hard to create the institution of simple-private-property such that we could prosecute and suppress the crimes of violence and theft. Low trust private property If it was hard to create the institution of low-trust private property such that we could prosecute and suppress the crimes of fraud and blackmail. High trust warrantied private property It was hard to create the institution of high-trust, warrantied, private property such that we could prosecute and suppress the crimes of fraud by omission, negligence, and externalization. High Trust Political Institutions It was hard to create the formal institutions of high political trust american classical liberalism in an attempt to suppress corruption in government, all forms of free riding. “Perfect-Trust” Informal and Formal Institutions So, the why would it not be even more difficult to create formal and informal institutions such that we could prosecute and suppress the crimes of deception by obscurantism, mysticism and loading? Because cooperation across reproductive strategies is impossible without trust that operates independently of our differences in property rights.

  • The Struggle To Extend In-Group Trust To Outgroup Members

    The ongoing struggle to extend in-group trust to out-group members. Or, the ongoing struggle to extend the cooperation demonstrated between consanguineous relations, to beyond those relations, such that it is possible for us to evolve a division of knowledge and labor, in which there is as little risk of misappropriation of our efforts in the market, as there is within the consanguineous family. While inside the family free riding is a form of mutual insurance, manageable by threat of deprivation and ostracization, the fact remains that one’s genetic kin prosper even at the cost of unequal distribution of gains and losses. But outside the kin, the same free riding, and unequal distribution of gains and losses, is neither of benefit to kin, nor controllable by ostracization and deprivation. There is always another group to prey upon if one is mobile enough. And it takes but a minority of predators engaging in immoral activity to render all external trust intolerable, and thereby undermine the people’s economy, polity, and competitive survival. Simple property If it was hard to create the institution of simple-private-property such that we could prosecute and suppress the crimes of violence and theft. Low trust private property If it was hard to create the institution of low-trust private property such that we could prosecute and suppress the crimes of fraud and blackmail. High trust warrantied private property It was hard to create the institution of high-trust, warrantied, private property such that we could prosecute and suppress the crimes of fraud by omission, negligence, and externalization. High Trust Political Institutions It was hard to create the formal institutions of high political trust american classical liberalism in an attempt to suppress corruption in government, all forms of free riding. “Perfect-Trust” Informal and Formal Institutions So, the why would it not be even more difficult to create formal and informal institutions such that we could prosecute and suppress the crimes of deception by obscurantism, mysticism and loading? Because cooperation across reproductive strategies is impossible without trust that operates independently of our differences in property rights.

  • Aristocratic Egalitarian “High Trust” Ethics vs Rothbardian “Ghetto” Ethics

    ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN “HIGH TRUST” ETHICS VS ROTHBARDIAN “GHETTO” ETHICS In the effort to suppress the state via arguments to anarchy the previous generations of libertarians failed to identify the cause of private property, and the differences between the high trust private property practiced by outbred homogenous ANF northern europeans, and the low trust inbred heterogeneous other cultures.  

    1484716_10152152905747264_1495672552_n
  • Aristocratic Egalitarian "High Trust" Ethics vs Rothbardian "Ghetto" Ethics

    ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN “HIGH TRUST” ETHICS VS ROTHBARDIAN “GHETTO” ETHICS In the effort to suppress the state via arguments to anarchy the previous generations of libertarians failed to identify the cause of private property, and the differences between the high trust private property practiced by outbred homogenous ANF northern europeans, and the low trust inbred heterogeneous other cultures.  

    1484716_10152152905747264_1495672552_n